Solution to homosexuals is by government executions according to Pastor.

[ppp]

And you did not have to ask the pronouns question?

Why are you asking a question that was directly addressed in the second sentence of the post to which you are replying?

 

[KWED]

Pastor says "solution" to gay people is executions: It's in the Bible
Wow.
Is it me, or is there an unusual amount of hate going on in Christianity today?

It must be difficult for modern, civilised Christians (and Muslims and Jews) to keep referring to "the word of god" and "god's law" etc, when they disagree with so much of it.

 

[KWED]

pride is antisocial behavior.

I've been to some Pride events and they were definitely very social.

 

[KWED]

In the USA, though not elsewhere, yes it seems there is. And you know why? Trump.

It is Trump who has given his supporters licence to indulge in and express hatreds that in the past people were encouraged to be civilised enough to repress and repudiate. Trump himself radiates hatred, seeking to use every issue to sow division and get one half of the country hating the other half. This, I'm sorry to say, is a large part of his appeal. People feel liberated that Trump creates a climate in which is it OK to hate the blacks, it is OK to hate the "elites" (a.k.a people with more knowledge or education than yourself), it is OK to hate the homosexuals, it is OK to hate the Mexicans, etc, etc.

This is the key to Trump's genius as a politician: you can find "other" types of people to blame, for whatever predicament you find yourself in......and then you can find relief in hating them and expressing that hatred in public - or he'll do it on your behalf.

This kind of appeal has been used before. In 1930s Germany, for example.

If the religion didn't contain violent intolerance in its scripture, no one would be able to encourage people to " indulge in it". If the Humanists were somehow taken over by an intolerant authoritarian, they wouldn't be able to give Humanists license to indulge in anything other than being jolly decent and sensible people.

 

[metis]

It must be difficult for modern, civilised Christians (and Muslims and Jews) to keep referring to "the word of god" and "god's law" etc, when they disagree with so much of it.

Sorta reminds me of Gandhi's response when asked what he thought of western civilization, and he said "They should try it".

Another: "Too many Christians elevated the man and forgot his message".

 

[KWED]

I didn't say it makes one feel threatened but unconfortable, see video.

Yikes! It must take some mighty hubris to post videos of yourself telling others how to live their lives.

 

[KWED]

Sorta reminds me of Gandhi's response when asked what he thought of western civilization, and he said "They should try it".

It was supposedly "I think it would be a good idea", but there is no record of him actually saying it. The first reference to it anywhere is from 20 years after his death.

 

[KWED]

I'm not talking about gay pride parade, but rather about pride in general which also includes pride of gay people.

What about a pride of lions? Is that bad? (I guess it depends on where you are)

 

[KWED]

No video needed.
Anything in excess can be a problem...

Paracelsus!

 

[samtonga43]

Why are you asking a question that was directly addressed in the second sentence of the post to which you are replying?

Your sentence: I just had a first date on Thursday and we navigated pronouns, sexuality, practices, family and politics within the first hour.
Does 'navigation of pronouns' mean that one or both of you asked the other, "What are your pronouns?"

 

[samtonga43]

It must be difficult for modern, civilised Christians (and Muslims and Jews) to keep referring to "the word of god" and "god's law" etc, when they disagree with so much of it.

I consider myself to be modern and civilized, and I disagree with those who read the Bible in a literalistic fashion, taking no account of context. I do not disagree with the Word of God.

 

[ppp]

Your sentence: I just had a first date on Thursday and we navigated pronouns, sexuality, practices, family and politics within the first hour.
Does 'navigation of pronouns' mean that one or both of you asked the other, "What are your pronouns?"

Yes. What did you think it meant?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry, I am obviously misunderstanding. So, after, or while being introduced to Lesley, would Leslie perhaps say something like, "May I ask what your pronouns are?"
?

It would be more like if we have never met before and are being introduced. Names are exchanged, preferred names and nicknames stated, amd for this subculture this is when asking about preferred peonouns occurs.

 

[KWED]

I consider myself to be modern and civilized, and I disagree with those who read the Bible in a literalistic fashion, taking no account of context. I do not disagree with the Word of God.

This what I said.
You disagree with what god actually says, so you are obliged to manipulate it into something acceptable.

 

[samtonga43]

This what I said.
You disagree with what god actually says, so you are obliged to manipulate it into something acceptable.

Well, no actually. As I said, I disagree with literalistic interpretations of 'what God said'. It’s really important when reading the many and varied books of the Bible to consider genre and also the intent behind the author's words.

A literalist reads as if the entire Bible is communicating to the reader a list of theological and historical facts. But there are many different kinds of writing, and we use them all to get our points across. The Bible does the same. Literalism flattens the richness of the various genres, and encourages those who don’t want / can’t be bothered to think about what they’re reading to do their literalistic thing.

Maybe rather than ask if the Bible is ‘true’, we should be asking “How is it true?”
This would involve questions about translation, original context and modern context, to mention just three.

An example would be the hyperbole used in the ancient context, for example :
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” [Luke 14:26 ESV]).

I wonder what literalists do with this verse?
Too awful to think about, is it not?

 

[metis]

It was supposedly "I think it would be a good idea", but there is no record of him actually saying it. The first reference to it anywhere is from 20 years after his death.

If so, it still fits in on other things he said dealing with western civilization.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You've had literally dozens of answers, and ignored them all. Not sure how many different ways it can be explained to you that a penis or vagina is not always going to be enough information to accurately attach a gender pronoun to someone.

I agree. I have agreed for this entire thread. I have accepted the answer JDMS gave a long time ago. The problem is that you want to say the question was about pronouns when it was not.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Have you been drinking? I have not remotely said any such thing, nor implied it either, this is a debate forum, it is the place to ask questions.



What a preposterous straw man?



Sigh, I never remotely told anyone nor suggested to anyone they couldn't ask questions, only pointed out that your question was facile to the point of being nonsensical, instead of addressing that you have attacked me with a dizzying string of straw man claims.



You owe me one irony meter.



I have assumed nothing, and merely pointed out your question is nonsensical as a person's sex organs are not enough information on which to decide "what we call someone" which is what you have been demanding everyone answer for page after page. You have entirely ignored the content of my post to denigrate me with straw man claims, whilst falsely accusing me of the same, this is just bizarre.

All of this is because you have never understood the question. It was never about what pronouns to call anyone.

How hard can it be to understand that having a penis or a vagina is not enough information on its own, to know how we should accurately address someone? Or defend your position if you think this isn't true, but please stop falsely playing the victim with endless straw man claims I have not remotely made.

Yes you have. You are claiming my question was about how to address a person when that has been answered by me many times and has noting to do with my question. I got my answer, if you disagree ok.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, I'm trying to show how going by genitals doesn't work out fully well. For various reasons it falls short and cannot be 100% accurate or reliable. Disease, accident, birth, genitalia can be remarkable inaccurate when it comes to such things.

I agree, and was not the point of my question.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's more the acceptable context, because unless you're an andrologist or gynecologist and it's a scenario that warrants that question, it's no more your business than asking someone if they're left or right handed (or ambidextrous even), because that generally doesn't apply or matter in how we interact with people. We wouldn't ask people if they're a sex worker or a drag queen or direct pornography, but some people, even well intentioned, can fall prey to gender essentialism of some sort, which appears to be part of the issue in the overall discussion.

But I am not asking to know what anyone's parts are. I agree it is not my business to know. I never said it was.

Wanting to properly refer to people in terms of their pronouns should be sufficient unless it has suddenly become so important we have to make the distinction beyond what already exists for cis and trans men/women. Male/female/intersex are pertinent, especially the 3rd one given what it can entail for personal gender identity, but again, it's quite likely over one's lifetime that we all would likely have met someone who's intersex and even more likely to have met someone who's transgender

This has nothing to do with my question.