[Goanet]Re: False assertions by George!
It might be useful for the right-wing Catholic fundamentalists to remember before they spew their smug & arrogant posts like Joe Vaz has done recently on this forum, that the greatest rabble-rouser in Christianity was Christ himself who offended a lot of people in his time. I am no Christ, neither are others who are far more reformist & progressive than me. However, we cannot be church mice. I have not seen one substantive post or idea from these folks (NOT ONE! - NADA, ZILCH). All we get are continuing personal attacks, cheap shots, innuendo, insinuations, etc. However, unlike them, I am not going to try and hide behind the goanet-admin skirts. Let them continue to air their un-Catholic hate in public. Regards, George
[Goanet]Re: False assertions by George!
--- George Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Folks, I apologize for Joe Vaz wasting your bandwidth. He has not offered one substantive point to counter the facts pointed out. George, please dont apologize on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of doing that for myself, should the situation warrant. Instead you need to apologize to the 1+ billion people The Church that you are blatantly and falsely accusing as being sexist racist and the Taliban type. I can only pity the way you eclipse your unethical and unfounded statements, by saying your discussions (albeit provocative insinuations) make intellectual debates. This is clearly a fallacy and subterfuge. Readers can see that instead of retracting your illogical and unfounded statements (that were reposted as proofs) for which you had no explanation to offer, you conveniently chose to deflect the blame on others who have earlier corrected you in this regard. To make your case that the Church is sexist, racist and the Taliban type, you must provide concrete and convincing evidence to that effect. However, you alluded that the Churchs reference to God as Father as being sexist and alleged the Church is racist because of the white/European elected Popes. You think others are buying this illogical and nonsensical stuff, as you portray it? When you cross the line and perpetuate your personal agenda on a public forum, readers have every right to question you and your types. Make no mistake that you too have also wasted a lot of bandwidth, making inexcusable insinuations, and false (bogus) propaganda against Christian beliefs and the Church. Can you tell us that you have exclusive rights to the bandwidth which you say is being wasted? Instead of hiding behind the curtains, why not come out with the truth? You have not spared any effort to smear/bash the Catholic Church, and you have NOT cared to tell this forum the truth -- your mission and visit to the Vatican? I am sure you have had every chance to exchange your intellectual (theological) thoughts and views with authorities at the highest level in the Vatican. Can you tell this audience, what really happened when you/your team lead a delegation to the Vatican? Did they disappoint you George, so much so that you had to take it out on this forum, using your sexist - racist and Taliban cards? I hope you also had an audience with His Holiness the Pope himself? Out of curiosity, did you ever ask YOUR following questions during your visit to the Vatican -- the answers to which you so passionately seek on Goanet? 1. Why the Church refers to God as Father? 2. Why the Church does not elect a non-white Pope? (even though the Pope appoints non-white Cardinals who are responsible for electing the Catholic Pope) 3. Why the Church behaves like the Taliban, -- who beat their women even for revealing their ankles? 4. Why the Church does not banish all the pedophile priests? 5. Why the Catholic Church violate womens rights, by not having Women Priests? I can see your heart bleeding all over the Goanet over these burning issues, George. Did the Vatican not pay heed to any of your innuendoes? Was this on your agenda George, or was it a wasted opportunity? Or was your agenda personal and completely different, one that did not address any of your above burning questions? Was it your sheer disappointment that the Vatican disapproved your personal agenda? Is this why you are camouflaging your real issues, and fraudulently beating upon the Church and the Vatican under the pretext that the Church is playing foul i.e. sexist - racist and Taliban type? I can only be sympathetic to your view that my understanding of current church theology is a 10 year-old? However, you have not presented the facts and truths. Your extensive knowledge on the Church theology did not allow you the enlightenment and answers to your top two questions. Isnt it unbecoming of a Professor of Ethics to make such inflammatory, obnoxious and illogical remarks? No wonder, George wants to make Goanet an Anjuna Flea (flee) Market, so that he can vent his nonsensical stuff on this forum, because no one else tolerates his tantrums. You see your Anjuna Flea Market concept is NOT working here, George. The records will reflect that many have repeatedly yet patiently tired to correct you on this forum, but you have obstinately refused to respect their requests. Joe Vaz _ Insta predictions! http://www.astroyogi.com/newmsn/astroshopping/astrologerservices/express.asp Get your answers in 48 hours!
[Goanet]Re: False assertions by George!
Folks, I apologize for Joe Vaz wasting your bandwidth. He has not offered one substantive point to counter the facts pointed out. He is upset by my comments but has not spoken a word when a like-minded person in his group used the phrase "sick and depraved" to refer to people who occasionally raise church issues. Their name-calling, personal attacks, spring from their own insecurity of their beliefs. His understanding of current church theology is a 10 year-old in catechism class. I have no problem with 10 year-olds or catechism class, except when adults wear their holy-than-thou attitude on their religious sleeve in public. I can only take them seriously when their offer a balanced view and acknowledge some of the issues raised. Since Joe Vaz and others are not offering any substantive points to discuss, this is my final post. They are not interested in serious discussion except to malign people and their views - and waste bandwidth in the process. Regards, George
[Goanet]Re: False assertions by George!
--- Joe Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An indebt analysis of your earlier posts will reveal your (George Pintos) intentions and > mannerism in depicting the Church as being sexists and racist. George Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> response: The Catholic Church is 1.1 billion Catholics and not just the Vatican. I have rarely, if ever, referred to the entire church in my comments. George, so you are admitting by your statement: I have RARELY, IF EVER referred to the entire church in my comments? This means that, yes there are instances where *you did refer to the entire church* as such? Frankly, I dont know what to make of your woolly statements. I think that you are just about entertaining people on the Goanet, which you recently compared to the Anjuna Flea Market (where everything goes)! Good for you George, I hope you prosper in such company that considers Goanet as a Flea Market where you can display your tamasha, and inflammatory posts, without sufficient thought or reason. Now at least we can see where all this is coming from. Following are Georges posts from the archives of Goanet. I hope that George will rescind his denial on the unfounded (provocative) statements he earlier made on this forum, after reading his previous posts and refreshing his memory. Also, think it would be an ethical thing to do, George? Georges writings speak abundantly for themselves, and any sense (or nonsense) can be deduced therefrom. I dont think this needs further debate. Note that there are several such posts on Goanet, by George, but for the sake of brevity, following are few examples: From: "George Pinto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: goanet@goanet.org --- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why does the Catholic Church not permit women priests? Georges Response: [Sexism. There are no "doctrinal & theological" reasons, just church practice. Behind all the fanciful fluff thrown around masquerading as theological reasons is this first, fundamental premise: women are less than men. Following that are a lot of false premises to justify the conclusion.] --- "Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cloning human beings should not be allowed. Georges Response: Isn't Pope Benedit XVI an exact clone of JP II? Regards, George - From: "George Pinto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: goanet@goanet.org Mario Goveia replies: George, a learned and highly educated person like you Georges response: Not true. Please take my word. Girls in Afghanistan under the Taliban were forbidden to attend schools, and women would be beaten in public if the Morality Police as much as caught a glimpse of their ankles The last time I checked, all that women in the Catholic Church were being excluded from was the priesthood. Regards, George - From: "George Pinto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: goanet@goanet.org --- Viviana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Fred - Women CAN become priests, but not in the RC church. If a woman feels called to be a priest(ess), there are MANY denominations for her to choose from, so why not choose one of them instead of banging her head at the Vatican's door? If she were really and truly interested in priesthood, and not just the evening news, a woman can achieve that goal. Viviana Georges Response: This is a bogus argument as the premises are being changed. The argument all along has been women becoming Catholic priests and not what other denominations do or don't. To attack them as seeking publicity on the evening news is an ad hominem argument. The lack of opportunity to become a woman priest and the denial to women solely based on their gender is tantamount to treating them as second-class. Much like the Taliban. Regards, George - George wrote: If you do not like the facts tell the Vatican, they are responsible for the facts. They 'create' the facts - elect Popes, make saints who are mostly European. < Joes Response: George, is the Vatican also responsible for continuously electing a white President so far, in your adopted country the USA? George writes: I see no connection with the topic being discussed. Why, George, you cannot see the connection from your earlier statement above. So, you think it is okay for you (as US Citizen) to have an ELECTED white PRESIDENT in the White House, but NOT an ELECTED POPE in the Vatican? Smacks of double standards, George! George deliberately dodges the following pointed questions: GP earlier wrote: A couple of questions: 1. Is God male, hence father? 2. Is God a white European male like most racist pictures depict him to be?< George, were you asking the above question liken to the INNOCENCE OF A CHILD or AS A THEOLOGIAN? As a practicing Catholic, did you not find the answers in t
