Solution to homosexuals is by government executions according to Pastor.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The best pride is one when somebody else tells you to be proud of something, not when you're proud on your own.

There is nothing wrong with pride in the secular sense of the word, and we often encourage it:

• "pride - a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired. "the team was bursting with pride after recording a sensational victory" Similar: pleasure, joy, delight, gratification, fulfillment, satisfaction, sense of achievement, contentment, self-esteem, self-respect. Opposite: shame"

I think you've been influenced by the Christian use of the word, which, of course, is chosen to promote Christianity, where pride generally means rebellion against god, the way it describes the failure to submit to its dicta. It is always a sin. Those who have walked away from Christianity are said to be too proud to obey, and instead, substitute themselves for God, the ultimate arrogance in the opinion of the religion for obvious reasons.

But for those outside of this religion, all of that is meaningless. There is no such thing as pride that depends on the existence of a god to be called that, just as there is no such thing as sin or blasphemy. Dismiss the deity and the toxic teaching of Christianity there, and what you have left is the humanist understanding of the word given above, which is affirming and constructive. That's because humanism is pro-people. Christianity is pro-Christianity. Humanism seeks to enable them. Christianity seeks to capture them. Blessed are the meek is another statement of its desire to break the spirit that leads to self-confidence and pride in one's life and accomplishments.

Much more hatred is outside the faith communities.

Humanism is an exemplary worldview. There is no hatred there.

For the record, that weird American mutant thing you have going on over there is not Christianity.

It is to me. If that's not the real Christianity, where is the real Christianity? Waiting in Canada for the phony Christianity to leave? Why isn't the real Christianity stepping up to rebuke that other Christianity and set us straight on what real Christianity is? Christianity is not what it claims for itself, but what we see that it is. Christianity is not what's in its book, which gives lip service to the Golden Rule, but in the way it is rendered, which is its opposite.

There are a number of atrocities in the Bible that were credited to Gods voice, telling people to do all sorts of evil stuff.

And there still are atrocities committed today using the name and device of a deity. We were just discussing America's version of this. Its values are as hateful as one can imagine, yet it's still telling us what its god wants for us. Lately, it's women being incubators. Call that love of fetuses, but make sure to call them babies, even if you have no love for those, either, if not born into your own family. Also, why and how you should hate homosexuals. Make sure to call it love, too.

 

[Kharisym]

Lately, it's women being incubators. Call that love of fetuses, but make sure to call them babies, even if you have no love for those, either, if not born into your own family. Also, why and how you should hate homosexuals. Make sure to call it love, too.

"Baby, I hit you because I love you."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

By its very nature, homosexual is not part of evolution, since this behavior cannot breed itself, into the DNA pool, to make it a part of the permanent evolutionary record. This implies homosexual is not natural; product of natural selection and evolution, but more of a cultural phenomena. It is more connected to will, choice and psychological inductions.

This, of course, as spewed by so many religious types who know little of evolution, is quite false. Homosexuality is known to occur naturally, but at increased frequency, among younger brothers of older brothers. Having a gay brother who'd rather stay home than go out hunting can have a tremendous advantage in protecting the children of an older brother -- who shares the same genes -- and that is ALL the evolution requires. That the children of an older brother survive because a younger gay brother was there to protect them keeps that genetic line going.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You cannot take a few examples of extreme free speech and use that to define a group of 1 billion people. This is like throwing out most of the data, so very limited data fits your desired curve. That is not how science works. This is more how propaganda works.

If you look at evolution, it is based on natural selection and sexual reproduction. Natural selection results in the best examples being chosen. While reproduction allows this to become engrained in the DNA. If you were selected, but do not breed, you are not fully part of evolution, since both factors need to be applied.

By its very nature, homosexual is not part of evolution, since this behavior cannot breed itself, into the DNA pool, to make it a part of the permanent evolutionary record. This implies homosexual is not natural; product of natural selection and evolution, but more of a cultural phenomena. It is more connected to will, choice and psychological inductions.

I am not making a value judgement, but this distinction is needed to make sure we approach this in a rational way, not based on genes that are not there, but based on cultural inductions. Homosexuality is connected to a long term cultural systemic affect, that appears to be part of all cultures, but is not fully conscious. This induction tends to produce the same result, generation after generation all over the earth.

My guess is homosexuality is connected to the observation of the strong bonds between mother and son, and father and daughter. Say these bonds were very close, a son's potential wife or a daughter's potential husband may create jealousy in their close parent, if there appears to be an alienation of affection. But if they become part of the other team; homosexuality, there is more security for the parents; remain number 1.

Mothers often make life hard on their son's wife, unless she is with the matriarchs program. But if the son's wife is willful and she has her own agenda, the son will be placed in the middle having to choose, even though he loves and chooses both. The Father and his daughters husband have similar dynamics. From the POV of a son or daughter dating, and getting this treatment, the solution to make peace for all may require playing on the other team; homosexual. The mother is less likely to stand in the way or sense alienation of affection; extra son to love.

After the breakup of the nuclear family, with the father often not present, the mother-son connection would have become stronger, than the father-daughter, due to living arrangements. One would expect a rise in gay inductions to help maintain the bond with a lonely mother without a mate. The daughters will lose their father and become closer to the mother, but have some trust issues with males. Two different affects.

In the Bible, gay behavior is frown upon, but lesbian is not really mentioned. I would attribute this to war and the father not around, leaving behind women and children, so the family break up scenario above plays out. Women remained more like women; Adam, while young men were altered by lonely woman; Eve. This affect also led to recruits for the church; celibacy. It is part of human nature gone astray due to will and choice.

This is all hooey, and your guess-work, when put against actual research by competent people, is worth very little.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good grief these people are awful, why are they so scared of homosexuals.

Well, all too often the ones most scared are the ones who've felt the urge. None of the very straight men I've known in my long life has ever had a problem with gay people, because gays are no threat to them. But if you're just dying to give in to a little temptation...well, for somebody who thinks they're going to punished eternally for it, that can be pretty scary.

 

[Debater Slayer]

pastor is correct though in saying that pride is evil.
it's not even about God or the bible, fact is that pride is antisocial behavior.

Pride is an antisocial behavior? Then why does Yahweh exalt himself and feel so much wrath in the Bible when people don't worship him?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@RayofLight
@Kharisym
@Terrywoodenpic

I always wondered why do gay people dress and talk like girls? and even take a makeup etc.
I mean, I can understand that there is same sex attraction, but why being girlish?

You haven't met many gay people, have you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

you see, it's really odd, because lesbians don't seem to dress like men or talking like men.
it looks that's specific to males.

I just can't grasp why.

You haven't met many lesbians, have you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You've probably past tons of gay men and didnt even notice.

The better question to me is why don't straight men act more feminine?

That's a good thread topic. Start it, and I shall come.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You've probably past tons of gay men and didnt even notice.

The better question to me is why don't straight men act more feminine?

No 'probably' about it.

 

[Ashoka]

@RayofLight
@Kharisym
@Terrywoodenpic

I always wondered why do gay people dress and talk like girls? and even take a makeup etc.
I mean, I can understand that there is same sex attraction, but why being girlish?

They don't. Clothes and talking don't have genders. They talk and dress like themselves, and that's okay.

 

[idea]

Pride in oneself is said to be a sin in Christianity, in fact one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

LGBTQ is pride in their group. It is no different from being supportive of any other group you happen to be in.

If you are proud to be *fill in religious belief*, or proud to be part of *fill in country or political group*, or proud of your *fill in family, sports team, school...*....

Condemn anyone who is "proud to be an American" ... the lyrics, "I'm proud to be - ... so this is a sinful song??

Everyone has the same rights, to take pride in *any group they feel supported and safe in*. Support groups are especially important for those who have been bullied, marginalized, excluded, lied about. The LGBTQ pride groups are saving lives, standing for freedom and equality, are on the battlefront. Their flags are a symbol fighting against bigotry and prejudices. Their message need to be yelled through megaphones.

 

[exchemist]

LGBTQ is pride in their group. It is no different from being supportive of any other group you happen to be in.

If you are proud to be *fill in religious belief*, or proud to be part of *fill in political group*, or proud of your *fill in family, sports team, school...*....

Everyone has the same rights, to take pride in *any group they feel supported and safe in*.

Yes, that’s different from the personal pride that Christianity warns against, which is much more to do with ego.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know when to avoid vidoes.
(It's a gift.)

Vidoes (sic)?

There, I know how to spell Machiavellian, too. Typos happen.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can you provide evidence to that. Historically, every "rising" civilization was violent. Gengis Khan was neither Christian, Jewish nor Muslim.

What do you mean by 'rising'?
Do you mean expansionist? Because...sure...but that's kind of a truism. Rare indeed are the neighbours who will happily surrender their land/women/culture/sacred relics to interlopers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You know what some people do?
They put two male animals into closed area until it become unbearable for them so they start doing the thing.
They would then post video on Youtube with funny claims.

It's soo pathetic, you don't have to be smart to see that no female was there to at least give the animal a choice which one to quaff.

I've been around a long time, and I have to tell you, that is the very first time I'm seen anything like you've just stated.

Please, do us all a favour and share your obviously authoritative sources!!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Person A: hello how are you?
Person B: fine thanks for asking
Person B: I'm gay
Person A: <confused> (did I ask him for your sexual orientation?) <confused>
Person A: OK, good for you

And you find this helpful in this discussion how, exactly?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's be honest and say that this so called "pastor" is not Christian at all, he's quoting old testament while in fact Christians should behave as commanded in new testament.
But what's even more embarassing is that non Christians are unable to conclude this and label Christains in same light as this unfortunate "pastor"

What's embarrassing is the pathetic attempts Christians still make at playing No True Scotsman. They are Christian, they are your ilk, amd they are taking directly from what the Bible says.
As for what's to be followed? Ask 100 Christians and get 100 answers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

see "research" section on wikipedia:
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia

there is no agreement among scientists, any conclusion such as what it might suggest are baseless.

You might try actually reading the articles you link. Unless it's too much trouble, of course, in which case you can just assume they say what you want them to. (Hint: they don't.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wow. I just bolded the part where it says studies indicate homosexuality exists in many species and it's been around since classical antiquity... Yet you think scientists think it's unnatural. Unbelievable.


What's this focused on unnatural anyway? Folk dye their hair and that's unnatural but as is the cars we drive the buildings we live in. Or unnatural in what other people define as unnatural in my opinion nothing goes against nature everything is natural but still. Why does homosexuality have to be quote on quote "natural" to be considered legitmate?

A lot of people (usually guided by their religious faith and as little as possible by actual knowledge) cannot distinguish between "unnatural" and "uncommon."

Pandas are black and white, right? WRONG -- if one is uncommonly (but not unnaturally) albino.

But how do you teach people to think who are so unused to the activity?