Living in the bible belt I can say there actually isn't anything in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin. Quotes are "abomination", " you will surely be put to death".
I would say 1 Cor: 6:9-10 covers just about everyone.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom 1:26-28 calls it an indecent act. As far as I know the word "sin" is never used.
Living in the bible belt I can say there actually isn't anything in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin. Quotes are "abomination", " you will surely be put to death".
I would say 1 Cor: 6:9-10 covers just about everyone.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom 1:26-28 calls it an indecent act. As far as I know the word "sin" is never used.
Damn this thread really went south quick.
It's funny how all those other unrighteous acts, all of which are choices save for homosexuality and effeminate, ever seem to get people all upset in the name of God.
I wouldn't bother arguing with him, because it's not really reason against reason. It's whatever you say vs whatever translation of the Bible or whatever other religious book. They absolutely deserve the right to congregate, but there are other relics that should have disappeared long ago. For example we offer tax exempt status to discriminatory organizations. Like a lot of other problems, that is one that specific lobbyists have fought to continue.
I know. I should know better by now. I really should.
For example we offer tax exempt status to discriminatory organizations. Like a lot of other problems, that is one that specific lobbyists have fought to continue.
It's not bad really, since most large churches are already not for profit corporations. The only difference is the property taxes which is a state matter.
When those big churches get into national broadcasting and multi-level merchandise marketing, then I think their non-profit status should be reviewed. Otherwise, the small neighborhood congregations are not a big issue.
Living in the bible belt I can say there actually isn't anything in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin. Quotes are "abomination", " you will surely be put to death".
I would say 1 Cor: 6:9-10 covers just about everyone.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Wow. If there actually were a god and a heaven and all that, I'd TOTALLY be screwed.
Wait. Is a short, somewhat drunken kiss on the lips with a married woman considered adultery?
It's not bad really, since most large churches are already not for profit corporations. The only difference is the property taxes which is a state matter.
When those big churches get into national broadcasting and multi-level merchandise marketing, then I think their non-profit status should be reviewed. Otherwise, the small neighborhood congregations are not a big issue.
Where I live, there's a long road along the lake. There used to be a lot of mansions there, though sadly many of them have been replaced with multiple smaller homes. Anyways, there are two churches on the road, one Catholic and one Lutheran. Both of them take up more land than any of the biggest mansions did. Of course, they don't have to pay property tax.
Is a short, somewhat drunken kiss on the lips with a married woman considered adultery?
Probably. It depends on what was in your mind or is still in your mind. Lust is adultery according to the New Testament.
Fortunately you can repent, ask for forgiveness, settle for a smaller mansion in heaven, but you probably won't be invited to the celebrity parties. But even if you can't resist temptation and continue in your sinful lifestyle, when the rapture comes, you will be resurrected and given another chance to become a faithful servant of God. You'll never attain a high position in heaven but at least you won't be cast into the inferno, so long as you obey.
Sounds like the deal you were offered here on earth doesn't it?
Well I guess many of us are going to wait and see, or you might, by pure chance, win the Lotto and blow it all. /s
Probably. It depends on what was in your mind or is still in your mind. Lust is adultery according to the New Testament.
Fortunately you can repent, ask for forgiveness, settle for a smaller mansion in heaven, but you probably won't be invited to the celebrity parties. But even if you can't resist temptation and continue in your sinful lifestyle, when the the rapture comes, you will be resurrected and given another chance to become a faithful servant of God. You'll never attain a high position in heaven but at least you won't be cast into the inferno, so long as you obey.
Sounds like the deal you were offered here on earth doesn't it?
Well I guess many of us are going to wait and see, or you might, by pure chance, win the Lotto and blow it all.
LOL
Well, I can be satisfied with the fact that SHE kissed ME! Granted, I'd wanted to kiss her for like two years. So ...
Don't believe it. Heaven and Hell are both right here on Earth. You make the wrong choices, you will suffer for your entire life, in some cases, cause your family to suffer long after you are gone. There is something to be said for clean living regardless if it is associated with some religious beliefs or doctrine or not.
2) You have proof that Apple is preventing Tim Cook from stating he's gay?
1) It all started last January (2011), when Gawker took it upon itself to declare Cook “The Most Powerful Gay Man in Silicon Valley,” after he took over as interim head for an ailing Jobs.
A few months later, Out Magazine placed Cook atop its annual list of the most powerful gays and lesbians. Cook, a man who’s often described as “intensely private,” didn’t show up for the photo shoot.
And many in the press want the rainbow tour to continue -- with or without Cook’s cooperation.
Over at the Atlantic, Nicholas Jackson writes that the Apple chief should acknowledge his sexual orientation.
“Cook is one of those at the high levels who is afraid to publicly confirm his homosexuality," Jackson writes. "And he won't be a role model for the LGBT community until he confirms the rumors and comes out of the glass closet he is assumed to be living in.”
Queerty's Daniel Villarreal urged Cook to use his new platform at Apple to advocate for queer issues, pushing manufacturers it works with to extend benefits to same sex partners and inserting itself into the gay marriage debate.
“Bust open that Silicon closet and change the world, Tim!,” Villarreal writes.
Felix Salmon at Reuters writes that the press does a disservice to the gay rights movement by refusing to write openly about Cook’s homosexuality.
Everyone knows Tim Cook is gay. Valleywag said it in 2011. His colleagues say it now. It's a social triumph that the arguably most powerful businessman in the world is also gay. So why, at one of the rare moments that Cook's sexuality actually matters, won't he finally say it?
2) If Apple is not preventing Tim to come out, then without looking like a hypocrite, how can Tim expect the gay community to stand up for themselves, not be ashamed of their orientation if he himself is not proud enough to admit he is one of them?
Plus, Apple only does something if it makes economic sense. Period. How much would it hurt their business, their image, if their CEO were to admit to the general public that he is gay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Because no one gives a shit?
And perhaps because he has no interest in making a big deal of it (assuming he's gay), and some people have the decency to respect a person's privacy that has no bearing on the business?
(Corrected typo).
Again, without looking like a hypocrite, how can Tim expect the gay community to stand up for themselves, not be ashamed of their orientation if he himself is not proud enough to admit he is one of them?
1) It all started last January (2011), when Gawker took it upon itself to declare Cook “The Most Powerful Gay Man in Silicon Valley,” after he took over as interim head for an ailing Jobs.
A few months later, Out Magazine placed Cook atop its annual list of the most powerful gays and lesbians. Cook, a man who’s often described as “intensely private,” didn’t show up for the photo shoot.
And many in the press want the rainbow tour to continue -- with or without Cook’s cooperation.
Over at the Atlantic, Nicholas Jackson writes that the Apple chief should acknowledge his sexual orientation.
“Cook is one of those at the high levels who is afraid to publicly confirm his homosexuality," Jackson writes. "And he won't be a role model for the LGBT community until he confirms the rumors and comes out of the glass closet he is assumed to be living in.”
Queerty's Daniel Villarreal urged Cook to use his new platform at Apple to advocate for queer issues, pushing manufacturers it works with to extend benefits to same sex partners and inserting itself into the gay marriage debate.
“Bust open that Silicon closet and change the world, Tim!,” Villarreal writes.
Felix Salmon at Reuters writes that the press does a disservice to the gay rights movement by refusing to write openly about Cook’s homosexuality.
2) If Apple is not preventing Tim to come out, then without looking like a hypocrite, how can Tim expect the gay community to stand up for themselves, not be ashamed of their orientation if he himself is not proud enough to admit he is one of them?
Plus, Apple only does something if it makes economic sense. Period. How much would it hurt their business, their image, if their CEO were to admit to the general public that he is gay?
1) You still have no proof that Tim is gay.
2) You still have no proof that Apple is preventing Tim from coming out if he happens to be gay.
3) It's a wonder why you so desperately want him to be gay.
4) Apple is against discrimination so Apple would only be a hypocrite in this case if they discriminated against hiring gays, but since you so vehemently stand by your accusations that he's gay you have proven that neither Apple nor Time is hypocritical.
PS: Apole is also against discrimination based on the color of one's skin but I don't see you labeling Tim a hypocrite for not being black.
It's not bad really, since most large churches are already not for profit corporations. The only difference is the property taxes which is a state matter.
When those big churches get into national broadcasting and multi-level merchandise marketing, then I think their non-profit status should be reviewed. Otherwise, the small neighborhood congregations are not a big issue.
I don't have as much of an issue with local churches on most issues. My issue is really with the overly commercialized ones, as you point out. I might include any that act as political mouthpieces in it as well. I do have an issue with subsidizing discriminatory organizations, which includes a portion of churches. I can't back this up, but my suspicion is that these guys make up a vocal minority. I really doubt the majority of those who attend Christian churches really care so deeply about the sexuality of others.
I've enjoyed the discussion, but I have lots of work to do. May the Lord bless you all!
Let us all seek his will and ways in all things, for his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts.
All glory to the Lamb!
Someone had posted this on a different thread and I saved it since I knew it would come in handy sometime.
I cannot find a thread more appropriate or a post more appropriate for this. Thanks to the original poster of this image and apologies I forgot who it was.
1) It all started last January (2011), when Gawker took it upon itself to declare Cook “The Most Powerful Gay Man in Silicon Valley,” after he took over as interim head for an ailing Jobs.
A few months later, Out Magazine placed Cook atop its annual list of the most powerful gays and lesbians. Cook, a man who’s often described as “intensely private,” didn’t show up for the photo shoot.
And many in the press want the rainbow tour to continue -- with or without Cook’s cooperation.
Over at the Atlantic, Nicholas Jackson writes that the Apple chief should acknowledge his sexual orientation.
“Cook is one of those at the high levels who is afraid to publicly confirm his homosexuality," Jackson writes. "And he won't be a role model for the LGBT community until he confirms the rumors and comes out of the glass closet he is assumed to be living in.”
Queerty's Daniel Villarreal urged Cook to use his new platform at Apple to advocate for queer issues, pushing manufacturers it works with to extend benefits to same sex partners and inserting itself into the gay marriage debate.
“Bust open that Silicon closet and change the world, Tim!,” Villarreal writes.
Felix Salmon at Reuters writes that the press does a disservice to the gay rights movement by refusing to write openly about Cook’s homosexuality.
Everyone knows Tim Cook is gay. Valleywag said it in 2011. His colleagues say it now. It's a social triumph that the arguably most powerful businessman in the world is also gay. So why, at one of the rare moments that Cook's sexuality actually matters, won't he finally say it?
2) If Apple is not preventing Tim to come out, then without looking like a hypocrite, how can Tim expect the gay community to stand up for themselves, not be ashamed of their orientation if he himself is not proud enough to admit he is one of them?
Plus, Apple only does something if it makes economic sense. Period. How much would it hurt their business, their image, if their CEO were to admit to the general public that he is gay?
I have no firsthand knowledge, but if I had to guess:
- Tim Cook is gay, as it seems to not be a secret among those who know him (speculation, of course)
- He either has zero interest in publicly discussing the matter, or perhaps Apple collectively (BOD, execs, likely including Tim himself) do not want to distract from his many other responsibilities and from Apple's public messaging. There are many other valid reasons he might choose not to do so than because he is "ashamed".
- Tim (with the strong support of Apple leadership of course) has far more ability as CEO of Apple to effect more real changes in support of gay rights than by being their public spokesman. (This story is a prime Exhibit A). Tim seems to be a thorough pragmatist, so I would expect him to consider the issue very thoughtfully. I see zero reason why not coming out publicly would make Tim a hypocrite, unless he has somewhere said that all CEOs should make all of their personal lives public, or that all homosexuals in important public positions should come out and can best use the opportunity as a soapbox for gay rights. Since you provided no evidence of that, I'm going to safely assume he didn't, and that therefore you have created a false imperative that he is under no moral obligation to satisfy.
nonsense and inhumane verses of the Bible for bigoted heterosexuals who pick on homosexuals(just for loving each other)...
0."And the swine/pork, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." Deuteronomy 14:8
1."Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)
2."Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)
3.Psalms 137:9 "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks."
4.Numbers 1:51, 3:10, 3:38
"The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death."
5."However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
6.(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
What about wine?? Ham?? Should i go on?? I cant list all the evil in that book written by MEN of the OLDEN DAYS
Personal religious opinions have nothing to do with this in any way whatsoever. We live in America, the land of the free. Freedom is the value of America. The freedom to exercise any religious beliefs, including gay marriage.
If you want your rights as a Christian respected then you need to stand up for the freedoms of others to believe anything they want as well. No-one should "force" their version of free will on another man.
Respect Freedom, it's the American way. Doesn't have anything to do with your personal belief systems.
Just to be clear, I believe the first one is the word of God and the others are perversions of God's word.
Considering the entire bible is nothing more than TRANSLATIONS, written BY MAN, your theory is with doubt, which in itself questions your own beliefs.
You can't be "clear" and "believe" as FACT in the same sentence about one topic.
Christianity is the biggest ripoff religion to ever come around. It was founded to force people into a belief system for the good of governments.
There's a good little movie you should watch. It puts things into perspective a little more. http://zeitgeistmovie.com
Keep in mind this very important part of ANY religion: Religions are based on BELIEFS and FAITH, not FACTS. If you want to believe in something and have faith, put those efforts into yourself. If you believe and have faith in YOURSELF, you'll get much further ahead in life. My life has been dramatically improved since I realized religion for what it is: complete, utter bullshit that's purest goal is to control a society.
Comments
I stopped reading after "Homosexuality is a sin."
Living in the bible belt I can say there actually isn't anything in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin. Quotes are "abomination", " you will surely be put to death".
I would say 1 Cor: 6:9-10 covers just about everyone.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom 1:26-28 calls it an indecent act. As far as I know the word "sin" is never used.
Damn this thread really went south quick.
It's funny how all those other unrighteous acts, all of which are choices save for homosexuality and effeminate, ever seem to get people all upset in the name of God.
I stopped reading after "Homosexuality is a sin."
I wouldn't bother arguing with him, because it's not really reason against reason. It's whatever you say vs whatever translation of the Bible or whatever other religious book. They absolutely deserve the right to congregate, but there are other relics that should have disappeared long ago. For example we offer tax exempt status to discriminatory organizations. Like a lot of other problems, that is one that specific lobbyists have fought to continue.
I know. I should know better by now. I really should.
It's not bad really, since most large churches are already not for profit corporations. The only difference is the property taxes which is a state matter.
When those big churches get into national broadcasting and multi-level merchandise marketing, then I think their non-profit status should be reviewed. Otherwise, the small neighborhood congregations are not a big issue.
Living in the bible belt I can say there actually isn't anything in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin. Quotes are "abomination", " you will surely be put to death".
I would say 1 Cor: 6:9-10 covers just about everyone.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Wow. If there actually were a god and a heaven and all that, I'd TOTALLY be screwed.
Wait. Is a short, somewhat drunken kiss on the lips with a married woman considered adultery?
It's not bad really, since most large churches are already not for profit corporations. The only difference is the property taxes which is a state matter.
When those big churches get into national broadcasting and multi-level merchandise marketing, then I think their non-profit status should be reviewed. Otherwise, the small neighborhood congregations are not a big issue.
Where I live, there's a long road along the lake. There used to be a lot of mansions there, though sadly many of them have been replaced with multiple smaller homes. Anyways, there are two churches on the road, one Catholic and one Lutheran. Both of them take up more land than any of the biggest mansions did. Of course, they don't have to pay property tax.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Probably. It depends on what was in your mind or is still in your mind. Lust is adultery according to the New Testament.
Fortunately you can repent, ask for forgiveness, settle for a smaller mansion in heaven, but you probably won't be invited to the celebrity parties. But even if you can't resist temptation and continue in your sinful lifestyle, when the rapture comes, you will be resurrected and given another chance to become a faithful servant of God. You'll never attain a high position in heaven but at least you won't be cast into the inferno, so long as you obey.
Sounds like the deal you were offered here on earth doesn't it?
Well I guess many of us are going to wait and see, or you might, by pure chance, win the Lotto and blow it all. /s
Probably. It depends on what was in your mind or is still in your mind. Lust is adultery according to the New Testament.
Fortunately you can repent, ask for forgiveness, settle for a smaller mansion in heaven, but you probably won't be invited to the celebrity parties. But even if you can't resist temptation and continue in your sinful lifestyle, when the the rapture comes, you will be resurrected and given another chance to become a faithful servant of God. You'll never attain a high position in heaven but at least you won't be cast into the inferno, so long as you obey.
Sounds like the deal you were offered here on earth doesn't it?
Well I guess many of us are going to wait and see, or you might, by pure chance, win the Lotto and blow it all.
LOL
Well, I can be satisfied with the fact that SHE kissed ME! Granted, I'd wanted to kiss her for like two years. So ...
Honestly, hell sounds like more fun anyways.
Don't believe it. Heaven and Hell are both right here on Earth. You make the wrong choices, you will suffer for your entire life, in some cases, cause your family to suffer long after you are gone. There is something to be said for clean living regardless if it is associated with some religious beliefs or doctrine or not.
[LIST]
[*] https://twitter.com/thetweetofgod/
[/LIST]
1) You have proof that Tim Cook is gay?
2) You have proof that Apple is preventing Tim Cook from stating he's gay?
1) It all started last January (2011), when Gawker took it upon itself to declare Cook “The Most Powerful Gay Man in Silicon Valley,” after he took over as interim head for an ailing Jobs.
A few months later, Out Magazine placed Cook atop its annual list of the most powerful gays and lesbians. Cook, a man who’s often described as “intensely private,” didn’t show up for the photo shoot.
And many in the press want the rainbow tour to continue -- with or without Cook’s cooperation.
Over at the Atlantic, Nicholas Jackson writes that the Apple chief should acknowledge his sexual orientation.
“Cook is one of those at the high levels who is afraid to publicly confirm his homosexuality," Jackson writes. "And he won't be a role model for the LGBT community until he confirms the rumors and comes out of the glass closet he is assumed to be living in.”
Queerty's Daniel Villarreal urged Cook to use his new platform at Apple to advocate for queer issues, pushing manufacturers it works with to extend benefits to same sex partners and inserting itself into the gay marriage debate.
“Bust open that Silicon closet and change the world, Tim!,” Villarreal writes.
Felix Salmon at Reuters writes that the press does a disservice to the gay rights movement by refusing to write openly about Cook’s homosexuality.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/idUS422760388920110825
Tim Cook tops Out magazine's Power 50 list for third straight year (2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/10/tim-cook-power-50-list-out-magazine
Everyone knows Tim Cook is gay. Valleywag said it in 2011. His colleagues say it now. It's a social triumph that the arguably most powerful businessman in the world is also gay. So why, at one of the rare moments that Cook's sexuality actually matters, won't he finally say it?
http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-most-powerful-gay-man-in-silicon-valley-stays-quiet-1458205420
2) If Apple is not preventing Tim to come out, then without looking like a hypocrite, how can Tim expect the gay community to stand up for themselves, not be ashamed of their orientation if he himself is not proud enough to admit he is one of them?
Plus, Apple only does something if it makes economic sense. Period. How much would it hurt their business, their image, if their CEO were to admit to the general public that he is gay?
Because no one gives a shit?
And perhaps because he has no interest in making a big deal of it (assuming he's gay), and some people have the decency to respect a person's privacy that has no bearing on the business?
(Corrected typo).
1) You still have no proof that Tim is gay.
2) You still have no proof that Apple is preventing Tim from coming out if he happens to be gay.
3) It's a wonder why you so desperately want him to be gay.
4) Apple is against discrimination so Apple would only be a hypocrite in this case if they discriminated against hiring gays, but since you so vehemently stand by your accusations that he's gay you have proven that neither Apple nor Time is hypocritical.
PS: Apole is also against discrimination based on the color of one's skin but I don't see you labeling Tim a hypocrite for not being black.
It's not bad really, since most large churches are already not for profit corporations. The only difference is the property taxes which is a state matter.
When those big churches get into national broadcasting and multi-level merchandise marketing, then I think their non-profit status should be reviewed. Otherwise, the small neighborhood congregations are not a big issue.
I don't have as much of an issue with local churches on most issues. My issue is really with the overly commercialized ones, as you point out. I might include any that act as political mouthpieces in it as well. I do have an issue with subsidizing discriminatory organizations, which includes a portion of churches. I can't back this up, but my suspicion is that these guys make up a vocal minority. I really doubt the majority of those who attend Christian churches really care so deeply about the sexuality of others.
I've enjoyed the discussion, but I have lots of work to do. May the Lord bless you all!
Let us all seek his will and ways in all things, for his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts.
All glory to the Lamb!
Someone had posted this on a different thread and I saved it since I knew it would come in handy sometime.
I cannot find a thread more appropriate or a post more appropriate for this. Thanks to the original poster of this image and apologies I forgot who it was.
sorry double post...
1) It all started last January (2011), when Gawker took it upon itself to declare Cook “The Most Powerful Gay Man in Silicon Valley,” after he took over as interim head for an ailing Jobs.
A few months later, Out Magazine placed Cook atop its annual list of the most powerful gays and lesbians. Cook, a man who’s often described as “intensely private,” didn’t show up for the photo shoot.
And many in the press want the rainbow tour to continue -- with or without Cook’s cooperation.
Over at the Atlantic, Nicholas Jackson writes that the Apple chief should acknowledge his sexual orientation.
“Cook is one of those at the high levels who is afraid to publicly confirm his homosexuality," Jackson writes. "And he won't be a role model for the LGBT community until he confirms the rumors and comes out of the glass closet he is assumed to be living in.”
Queerty's Daniel Villarreal urged Cook to use his new platform at Apple to advocate for queer issues, pushing manufacturers it works with to extend benefits to same sex partners and inserting itself into the gay marriage debate.
“Bust open that Silicon closet and change the world, Tim!,” Villarreal writes.
Felix Salmon at Reuters writes that the press does a disservice to the gay rights movement by refusing to write openly about Cook’s homosexuality.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/idUS422760388920110825
Tim Cook tops Out magazine's Power 50 list for third straight year (2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/10/tim-cook-power-50-list-out-magazine
Everyone knows Tim Cook is gay. Valleywag said it in 2011. His colleagues say it now. It's a social triumph that the arguably most powerful businessman in the world is also gay. So why, at one of the rare moments that Cook's sexuality actually matters, won't he finally say it?
http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-most-powerful-gay-man-in-silicon-valley-stays-quiet-1458205420
2) If Apple is not preventing Tim to come out, then without looking like a hypocrite, how can Tim expect the gay community to stand up for themselves, not be ashamed of their orientation if he himself is not proud enough to admit he is one of them?
Plus, Apple only does something if it makes economic sense. Period. How much would it hurt their business, their image, if their CEO were to admit to the general public that he is gay?
I have no firsthand knowledge, but if I had to guess:
- Tim Cook is gay, as it seems to not be a secret among those who know him (speculation, of course)
- He either has zero interest in publicly discussing the matter, or perhaps Apple collectively (BOD, execs, likely including Tim himself) do not want to distract from his many other responsibilities and from Apple's public messaging. There are many other valid reasons he might choose not to do so than because he is "ashamed".
- Tim (with the strong support of Apple leadership of course) has far more ability as CEO of Apple to effect more real changes in support of gay rights than by being their public spokesman. (This story is a prime Exhibit A). Tim seems to be a thorough pragmatist, so I would expect him to consider the issue very thoughtfully. I see zero reason why not coming out publicly would make Tim a hypocrite, unless he has somewhere said that all CEOs should make all of their personal lives public, or that all homosexuals in important public positions should come out and can best use the opportunity as a soapbox for gay rights. Since you provided no evidence of that, I'm going to safely assume he didn't, and that therefore you have created a false imperative that he is under no moral obligation to satisfy.
nonsense and inhumane verses of the Bible for bigoted heterosexuals who pick on homosexuals(just for loving each other)...
0."And the swine/pork, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." Deuteronomy 14:8
1."Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)
2."Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)
3.Psalms 137:9 "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks."
4.Numbers 1:51, 3:10, 3:38
"The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death."
5."However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
6.(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
What about wine?? Ham?? Should i go on?? I cant list all the evil in that book written by MEN of the OLDEN DAYS
If you want your rights as a Christian respected then you need to stand up for the freedoms of others to believe anything they want as well. No-one should "force" their version of free will on another man.
Respect Freedom, it's the American way. Doesn't have anything to do with your personal belief systems.
Just to be clear, I believe the first one is the word of God and the others are perversions of God's word.
Considering the entire bible is nothing more than TRANSLATIONS, written BY MAN, your theory is with doubt, which in itself questions your own beliefs.
You can't be "clear" and "believe" as FACT in the same sentence about one topic.
Christianity is the biggest ripoff religion to ever come around. It was founded to force people into a belief system for the good of governments.
There's a good little movie you should watch. It puts things into perspective a little more. http://zeitgeistmovie.com
Keep in mind this very important part of ANY religion: Religions are based on BELIEFS and FAITH, not FACTS. If you want to believe in something and have faith, put those efforts into yourself. If you believe and have faith in YOURSELF, you'll get much further ahead in life. My life has been dramatically improved since I realized religion for what it is: complete, utter bullshit that's purest goal is to control a society.