(October 18, 2015 at 2:00 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Drich Wrote: Concerning what?

(An unsupported accusation such as your post would be a ad hoc attack) which is an ignorant persons response to a topical conversation.

Irony anyone?

Mermaid is right you know

concerning what? Again, empty unsupported attack means she/you are doing the very thing you claim I am doing.. Which means I am right... you know.

I look forward to you dealing with Drich here TheRocketSurgeon

(So tempted to interject myself but I'll resist the urge).

(October 19, 2015 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 1:38 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Homosexuality is not bred out of the gene pool because of kin selection; it appears to have conferred an advantage in tribal settings to have a small percentage of members of those tribes (roughly 1 in 20) who did not produce mouths-to-feed (for most of our hunter-gatherer history, food was a scarce enough commodity that it was all but impossible to support groups of larger than 200 on that system of living, due to the difficulties of overgrazing and having to move on), yet who could serve in both the child-raising role and the hunter or gatherer roles.

We saw this archetype in most of the hunter-gatherer groups observed in historical times, when "civilized" (primarily-agricultural, that is) peoples encountered those groups and sent anthropologists to study them. In Native American culture, they are called the "third gender", and were often treated as spiritually significant, like "Medicine Men" and spiritual guides of the tribe, for instance.

It is only since the advent of the Agricultural Revolution, when food became exceedingly plentiful by comparison, that the notion of "breed as much as possible" became possible, let alone advantageous.

Google the concept of "kin selection". Genetics is not a simple matter of pass-down-by-individuals, in social animals like humans, but a matter of the survival of the tribe and the family-gene-pools within it. It's why we see homosexuality in every social animal we observe. It's also why meerkats (for instance) have behaviors that seem detrimental, like the ones who stand in high, exposed places and cry out when they see an approaching predator, yet are actually survival-enhancing because the one who dies to the predator on occasion nevertheless ensures that his kin make it to their hidey-holes in time.

This.. 'explanation' would only work is a social communal setting where the homosexuals creatures were still having hetrosexual sex. which deletes the idea of the 'pure homosexual' (who can not supposedly be aroused by the opposite sex) Otherwise the 'gay gene' (if it truly ever existed) would have been bred out of the gene pool (Per Darwin's theory not mine) a few dozen generations ago. Why? Because if the gay monkeys gay people descended from could not reproduce/Could not be aroused by the opposite sex) then their pure gay gene died with them, no matter how useful they were to the non gay monkey men. Which means that your 'explanation' then becomes a social/psychological Choice and not one genetically programed in. (Monkeys had gay sex because it was fun for that particular monkey, and not because it 'had to.')

A good example that dispels your explanation would be all the supposedly gay animals who do not commune in herds or packs/families (as your explanation demands for it's validation.)  The fact that non social creatures(One who does not live in any of the social structures you described) who still have homosexual tendencies proves that those animals simply chose to have sex with what they wanted, because it is pleasurable to them, yet could serve no purpose, or rather had no influence on the genetic make up of the species as a whole.

Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

Maybe that is why genetic science make no claims to "Coming closer to finding the gay gene" And it maybe also why "psychologists/sociologists" seem to be the only ones making those claims. Or so goes my last 3 google searches

I really don't understand your argument here, just another example of the religious attempting to fit new scientific ideas to their prehistoric dogma.

I'd have loved to have seen your take on this a few decades ago...you're an intelligent guy, clearly.  How you can see through your own bullshit astounds me.

(October 18, 2015 at 2:57 pm)ForsakenHeretic Wrote: We don't have to define bigot for you, it's what you are, you say what your doing "isn't hate its brotherly love" bullshit its brotherly love.

You can't/won't define bigot because to you it is just a mean name to call people when you strongly disagree with them, and if they were programmed by society properly they will take back what they said an fall in line. That is why someone like you will not define a word like bigot when asked.

However those looking for truth will always provide any truth they have when asked. Which was the reason why I've defined 'bigot' several times in this thread. for my usage of the word and to correct mindless social lemmings and their usage of the word.

Look here sport, A Bigot is not just an insult. It describes hate or intolerance a person has for someone who holds a different opinion. Now it is true that I have a different opinion, but I ask you to show me the hate in anything I have said.. Now remember me having a different opinion is not hate. it is simply a different opinion.

Now let's look for hate in what you have said.... Nothing?!!? Imagine that.
Now lets look at the hypocritical words of the pro gay loby.. (or what you and the pervious posted said.) hmmm.. Me loosing my faith because I take my instruction from the bible, would be an example of hate. calling me names (not using word terms properly/contextually) eg, homophobe, bigot, Hater of gay people, again without proper context the names/titles can all be construed as hate speech. as they are mean in a slanderous way, to defame my ideas and discredit me personally. So I ask then who is the bigot here? If you respect the truth at all, then you have to concede it is you. If you are not a fan of truth then you're a nobody I need to be concerned with.

What is the reason for this/your bigotry and hate? I simply don't agree with your world view. I say Homosexuality is a sin like all other sexual sin found in the NT. which again puts the homosexual on the same level as anyother brother or sister who has fallen into sexual sin. My call to repentance to the homosexual is no different than any other heterosexual caught in sexual sin. This is true equality sport. not bigotry. Me telling the homosexual he can justify his deeds before God, or me simply remaining silent is akin to me sending that person to Hell. Calling them to repent takes a rather large measure of brotherly love especially in today's society.

Quote:People like you are the reason LGBT people commit suicide because you bully them and teach your kids to pick on them, if you really loved them you'd support them and help them with their situation, not call them faggots and demon possessed reprobates.

Gay people do not have a special in or reason to commit suicide. They commit suicide for the same reasons everyone else does. they are unhappy with themselves and think death is a release or end to their suffering. This is not unique to the gay community. If however given the social acceptance in recent years if gay suicide has not changed or has even increased then perhaps it is not the outside influences that contribute to gay suicide, but internal ones. (Something inherent with that life choice.)

Quote:You said Adolf Hitler saw Christianity as "hostile" I dont know if you've read Mein Kamph but Hitler says God guides him and anybody who goes against the church should be killed he also said his most ardent goal was to be a priest. German soldiers had belts that said "gott mit uns" which means God is with us in German Hitler also said we needed to fight against the atheistic agenda. If you think homosexuality goes against Gods law then you need to follow his other rules to such as, you can't shave your beard, you can't wear mixed fabrics, you can't pick up sticks on the sabbath, you must kill your kids if they talk back to you, and men must own their wife and women must be submissive to their husband.

You didn't even look at the link I provided to positive Christianity did you?

"Positive Christiianity" was Hitler's own version. Meaning He completely cut Himself and those in Germany off of the R/C Church and ALL other non state sponcered/propaganda filled bibles and denominations.

So yes Hitler did indeed use the term 'God' but as I said (Before you strawmanned off into this completely uninformed/ignorant of basic history tangent) Hitler saw the bible and Christianity as prescribed by the bible as a 'problem' to the Germany he was creating. He deemed all non Nazi State versions of Christianity is Negitive, and issued edicts forbidding it's practice. In His version he was the prophet/pope to God, and his word was akin to the words of God. This subsequently is why he also forbade Atheism.

Quote:

---

Oh and one more thing Hitler used Christianity as a way to justify his antisemitism and homophobia. Hitler also signed a treaty with the Vatican, and Catholic priest would often promote Nazism and antisemitism in their sermons. So don't try to say to me "well Hitler just used Christianity as a political tool" due to what the Catholic priests did.

Again, no. I ask you go back and read what I posted on "Positive Christianity." Educate yourself, before you speak. Don't make it so easy for me to make you look foolish. it makes everything you stand for also look ill informed and foolish.

(October 19, 2015 at 9:33 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 2:51 pm)dyresand Wrote: Bigoted stances in the bible


18:22 <- ding ding ding mother fucker 
Leviticus 18:22, 12:31 <- 
33:26
vv 27-28

The bible is not historically accurate and yes the bible is horse shit. Study WW2 history christianity was the religion to unite the masses. Your religion  isn't as clean as you think. 

Hypocrisy? Hah i bet you eat shrimp and lobster don't get me started. 

Wait a tick...

Your not one of those Stoo-ped Atheists who don't know that bible represents two completely different religions are you?

Or do you not know their are no more OT Jews?

IDK Sandy, maybe it's better if you put me back on "your list." I don't think youtube can help you much on this one.

You're not one of those stupid individuals who doesn't know that the bible represents far more than two completely different religions are you?
Case and point; every single denomination who interprets the Bible radically differently.
If you're going to be insulting could you at least do it properly? 
(FYI; You're using the laughing emote far too much at things that aren't that funny to the point its becoming meaningless.)

(October 19, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote:
You can't/won't define bigot because to you it is just a mean name to call people when you strongly disagree with them, and if they were programmed by society properly they will take back what they said an fall in line. That is why someone like you will not define a word like bigot when asked.

However those looking for truth will always provide any truth they have when asked. Which was the reason why I've defined 'bigot' several times in this thread. for my usage of the word and to correct mindless social lemmings and their usage of the word.

Look here sport, A Bigot is not just an insult. It describes hate or intolerance a person has for someone who holds a different opinion. Now it is true that I have a different opinion, but I ask you to show me the hate in anything I have said.. Now remember me having a different opinion is not hate. it is simply a different opinion.

Now let's look for hate in what you have said.... Nothing?!!? Imagine that.
Now lets look at the hypocritical words of the pro gay loby.. (or what you and the pervious posted said.) hmmm.. Me loosing my faith because I take my instruction from the bible, would be an example of hate. calling me names (not using word terms properly/contextually) eg, homophobe, bigot, Hater of gay people, again without proper context the names/titles can all be construed as hate speech. as they are mean in a slanderous way, to defame my ideas and discredit me personally. So I ask then who is the bigot here? If you respect the truth at all, then you have to concede it is you. If you are not a fan of truth then you're a nobody I need to be concerned with.

What is the reason for this/your bigotry and hate? I simply don't agree with your world view. I say Homosexuality is a sin like all other sexual sin found in the NT. which again puts the homosexual on the same level as anyother brother or sister who has fallen into sexual sin. My call to repentance to the homosexual is no different than any other heterosexual caught in sexual sin. This is true equality sport. not bigotry. Me telling the homosexual he can justify his deeds before God, or me simply remaining silent is akin to me sending that person to Hell. Calling them to repent takes a rather large measure of brotherly love especially in today's society.

"a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city""

Done, now you can stop deflecting with long walls of text dedicated to relatively minor points. No need to thank me. 
Another question I would ask, based on this definition, is that are you intolerant to the opinion that gay people have a right to be themselves without ridicule or any type of harassment?
I mean, you're declaring it a sin. You're saying God is going to send them to hell. You support God, you say hes right. About everything. Therefore you think its right for gay people to burn forever?
And you have the gall to feign offence at being called intolerant? 
Just stop, its demonstrably false, demeaning and detracting from your main points.

(October 19, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: Gay people do not have a special in or reason to commit suicide. They commit suicide for the same reasons everyone else does. they are unhappy with themselves and think death is a release or end to their suffering. This is not unique to the gay community. If however given the social acceptance in recent years if gay suicide has not changed or has even increased then perhaps it is not the outside influences that contribute to gay suicide, but internal ones. (Something inherent with that life choice.)

If a community targeted you by screaming abuse at you, calling you an abomination and saying you deserve to burn in hell regularly I dare say it might contribute slightly to you being "unhappy". Again, this is demeaning. 
To deny that the regular abuse they suffer does not play a role undermines any credibility you have. 
Its dishonest and you know it.

(October 19, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: You didn't even look at the link I provided to positive Christianity did you?

"Positive Christiianity" was Hitler's own version. Meaning He completely cut Himself and those in Germany off of the R/C Church and ALL other non state sponcered/propaganda filled bibles and denominations.

So yes Hitler did indeed use the term 'God' but as I said (Before you strawmanned off into this completely uninformed/ignorant of basic history tangent) Hitler saw the bible and Christianity as prescribed by the bible as a 'problem' to the Germany he was creating. He deemed all non Nazi State versions of Christianity is Negitive, and issued edicts forbidding it's practice. In His version he was the prophet/pope to God, and his word was akin to the words of God. This subsequently is why he also forbade Atheism.

If you have evidence important to your argument copy and paste the specific sentence or paragraph important to it. Nobody should have to search through a webpage to find your point for you.
Anyway. He was a leader of a different denomination so that means Christianity isn't responsible.
Seriously. When has that line of reasoning ever worked for you?

(October 19, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: Again, no. I ask you go back and read what I posted on "Positive Christianity." Educate yourself, before you speak. Don't make it so easy for me to make you look foolish. it makes everything you stand for also look ill informed and foolish.

So your house is pretty much just shards of glass at this point huh?

(October 19, 2015 at 10:37 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:33 am)Drich Wrote: Wait a tick...

Your not one of those Stoo-ped Atheists who don't know that bible represents two completely different religions are you?

Or do you not know their are no more OT Jews?

IDK Sandy, maybe it's better if you put me back on "your list." I don't think youtube can help you much on this one.

You're not one of those stupid individuals who doesn't know that the bible represents far more than two completely different religions are you?
Case and point; every single denomination who interprets the Bible radically differently.
If you're going to be insulting could you at least do it properly? 
(FYI; You're using the laughing emote far too much at things that aren't that funny to the point its becoming meaningless.)

Now you see why i used my plugin to stop seeing his posts.