Tweet
I was not alluding to his unfortunate childhood........
-
-
Mek mi play adversary fi ah minute. Mi cyan condone nohbaddi, "out that faghot soon" as yuh put it. I dont support such lifestyle, however, him nat going round harming old people an innocent children like so many "straight brothers". Matter of fact him has put ah whole lot ah Black men an Wonen to work, and given generously back tuh di Black community, in addition to other positive things, lot of it under di quiet. Wha dem Rappers doing fi dem Community?Comment
-
Are Engaged
When has he ever said he is gay?
Last I herd he was engaged to model Gelila Bekele. Has that been called off?
Last edited by Tropicana; 09-04-2013, 07:30 PM.Comment
-
when will u learn that being married or engaged means nothing about ones gayness or not.
You've seen nuff ppl have marridness and yutes and den come out 12 years later bout how dem gay as de day is long.
Mi nuh kno if dis man gay ar not but he does love to dress in ooman clothes. Which is an abomination if yuh really feel fi guh dung dem road deh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Emperah View Post
True.
Well he is playing a specific character, Madea. Not sure why he started playing her but, as far as I know, he doesn't dress in drag. How do you feel about Japanese Kabuki in which the men play al the parts of the men and women? How about Japanese Noh? I have seen both a couple of times. In Shakespeare's day, I believe the men played all the parts too. Men weren't even permitted on stage. I don't think any of this is the same as dressing in drag.Originally posted by Emperah View PostMi nuh kno if dis man gay ar not but he does love to dress in ooman clothes. Which is an abomination if yuh really feel fi guh dung dem road deh
Now Deuteronmoy 22:5 clearly says:
Now I know some churches in Jamaica and other places interpreted that to mean that a woman should not wear pants. (Closed Brethren for example.) Today, just about everyone, male and female wears slacks or jeans. The writer George Sand (born Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin) was severely criticized in her day (19th century) for wearing "trousers" and dressing her daughters in trousers.New International Version A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
New Living Translation A woman must not put on men's clothing, and a man must not wear women's clothing. Anyone who does this is detestable in the sight of the LORD your God.
English Standard Version A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
New American Standard Bible A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
How does one define men's clothing? In the Middle East and Africa, men traditionally wore robes.
:thinking: Interesting.Comment
-
Good observationOriginally posted by Tropicana View PostNo sah...you loss fi true...
Will look at your video and get back to you. Interesting though, you talk about religion more than most religious people. Wonder why that is.
aka ChurchDude. I want that moniker back! Until then....
"Sometimes you have to let go to see if there was anything worth holding on to" ~ AnonComment
-
To be honest Diplomat, I believe he has a calling on him but he doesn't realize it. I am serious about that.Originally posted by Diplomat View PostGood observationComment
-
Tyler Perry?
Look like him realize it tuh mi, fool de elderly in de chuch fi sing weh all dem land and money tuh de chuch.Comment
-
Emperah...it is not Tyler Perry I was referring to with the "not realize it" comment.....it was you.
My comment was directed at you:
This was about you not Tyler Perry:Interesting though, you talk about religion more than most religious people. Wonder why that is.
To be honest Diplomat, I believe he has a calling on him but he doesn't realize it. I am serious about that.Comment
-
Originally posted by Emperah View PostMi nuh kno if dis man gay ar not but he does love to dress in ooman clothes. Which is an abomination if yuh really feel fi guh dung dem road dehComment
-
look like dem tek dung de video aftah all de flack dem a receive, mi a guh stawt copy some a dem an put dem back up when dem gwaan wid dem foolishness
Myisha Cherry
Adjunct Philosophy Professor, CUNY and LIU
10 Thoughts on Tyler Perry and Bishop Jakes, Evangelicals, and Money
Posted: 09/09/2013 12:05 pm
I finally got the strength to watch the viral video of Tyler Perry and Bishop Jakes recently. I then had conversations about it with Christians and non-Christians in coffee shops and on phone conversations. While usually I can write paragraphs and paragraphs of analyses, my thoughts about what I saw and what I felt could only be expressed through a list.
The following are ten thoughts (some are concerns and others are critiques) about not only the video but also the evangelical church in general. To make full sense of it, I recommend you take a look at the video first. My perspective is from one who was "raised in the church all my life," has taught religion, is a philosopher who happens to be Christian, is a person who was ordained in the church, is an out-the-box yet critical thinker, and is a person who is trying to make sense of the church's present state and also hope for that thing back that drew me to the church in the first place.
1. Unfortunately, power and success equates to "anointing" and gives certain people more access than others in evangelical culture. This is wrong!
2. If you are a giver, there is no need to announce it. Just as it is the case that when you are humble, there is no need to announce it.
3. We must not imagine that to be a "giver" is to only give to religious causes. In truth it seems that giving money to other "secular" or at-least "faith-based" causes would be more productive, effective, and wise than giving large "sacrificial seeds" to the church.
4. I believe that creating random numbers as a challenge in giving is manipulative and ridiculous. It's foolish to say that because it is 10:00, God wants you to give 10 million dollars. I wish we were more critical in this regard. I also wish that "offering callers" were less deceptive.
5. The audience' response to Tyler Perry and Bishop Jakes is psychologically intriguing. It is Bishop Jakes who is receiving the million dollars and yet the audience is rejoicing as if they are Bishop Jakes. I am not suggesting that the audience should not be happy for him, but it seems they are rejoicing over the idea that they could be next in line to receive a blessing from God. However, "hoping" it will happen to you is quite different from "it will happen to you." The reality is that the church audience members are much less likely to become millionaires. To make them believe that they will be if only they are faithful and giving is dangerous and false.
6. This idea of God extending "favor" to people is also dangerous. Favor indicates the reality of "favorites." If God has favorites, this depicts God as bias and unfair. I would hate to believe that a loving God is also an unfair God. While people may hold these characteristics, it conflicts with the idea of a good God.
7. Evangelicals must become more of a friend to the poor. What I mean by this is to ask congregants to write blank checks or checks for $100,000 in a sea of poor and middle class people is not only irresponsible but it is to turn a blind eye to the current economic state of its members. To become a friend to the poor is to acknowledge and to be sensitive to the economic state of its congregants. To help the poor is not to tell them that giving is a way out. Rather it is to teach them to save. It's to not only give them money seminars, but networking opportunities (particularly with the rich congregants) as well as skill seminars and higher education opportunities in order to give them a greater chance at economic stability. To ask poor and middle class people to "sacrifice" their hard-earned money to build a church when they are also currently sacrificing to survive is evil.
8. If a church is the best looking and biggest site in an urban neighborhood I find that problematic. While for some it may suggest that we have put God first or it becomes a solace for poor people, I disagree. I believe it shows an otherworldliness theology and a neglect for the people and conditions around it. I do not believe God's house needs to be "the most immaculate" particularly if God dwells in the hearts and minds of the poor and middle class congregants, then God also lives in their houses. So why do we neglect to rebuild or revitalize their houses with the same priority?
9. Anthea Butler wrote an article this summer where she makes a distinction between the God she serves and the racist God that conservatives have created. In the same vein, I'm beginning to think evangelicals are serving a totally different God than the one I fell in love with at 6-years-old, the one I dedicated three years of seminary to studying, and the one I made a commitment to during my AME ordination over ten years ago. Call me rouge or call me crazy, but I just think that I serve a totally different God than the money focused one I saw on the viral video and hear about in church rhetoric. My God is not capitalistic, sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. I'm so sorry to hear that yours is.
10. I predict the "culture of church" will be the death of the church. Until the church gets more focused on the teachings of Jesus and less focused on a manipulative concept of success, emotionalism, and dogmatism; it will always look like foolishness to outsiders and feel "only" like church to insiders.
Comment
-
at 3:19 yuh si de man dem run come behine Teef Dem Jakes as dem know seh de big act was bout fi stawt
Comment
-
So now that you have a replacement are you going to copy it so that you can replace it if it get delete again?Comment
Comment