Texas pastor openly calls on 'Christian nationalists' to 'impose their values on society'

[Heyo]

Yes, but I believe the post I responded was likely referring to students being indoctrinated.

Or hinting in the direction that schools should remain silent about all topic which might be controversial. ("LGBTQ agenda")
If anything school should educate about the topic (without taking sides and in the right context, creationism still doesn't belong in science class).

 

[1213]

A student can pray many times in a given day, including when at school.

Ok, I meant that atheist pushing values is not only saying people are not allowed to pray. And by what I know, some atheists want that there is no common praying in the schools. It does not mean that they are forbidding private praying, only that which is public, for all to listen.

Where are schools supposedly teaching communism?

I feel that in Finland all schools. But I didn't mean to say there are such schools, only that if people want that to be taught communism, it should be in private schools.

OK, so you're pro-death.

Seems that $ is very high on your list and people rank much lower.

Why do you think I am pro-death and think $ is higher than people? I don't support abortion, which is a good business for those who sell the body parts.

 

[1213]

...Do you believe they are promoting being gay, simply by being gay, regardless of what they say or teach in the classroom?

Actually, I don't even know what you mean with "simply being gay". Unless it is in its old meaning lighthearted and carefree. If teacher is neutral, I don't think anyone knows is he "gay" or heterosexual. I don't think it is good that a teacher tells his sexuality to the class.

I'm not so sure about the idea of banning books in school libraries, once students are of a certain age of course. Obviously, you don't stock the libraries of elementary schools with age-inappropriate material. Once you're talking highschool and stuff, then exposing children to different points of views, is important for the purpose of a broad education.

Simply exposing children at age-appropriate stages of development to different ideas, is not the same thing as "promoting" those ideas. Unless you believe in book burning and suppressing information is good for people?

If government can ban critical speech to vaccines for example, why not to everything else? No, I think freedom of speech is important. But I think it would be best if public schools have only neutral things, not books that can be interpreted to promote some ideology or lifestyle. If parents want their children to know something else, they can give that knowledge by some other way.

...You don't consider a civil rights march to be blacks pushing their blackness on us, do you? We should learn to respect and appreciate those of our own culture, whereas they have been historical mistreated by culture at large.

A civil rights march is not about pushing blackness, but about promoting civil rights for everyone, which I think should be clear automatically. All humans should have same rights. There should not be any reason to even think what the color or sexuality is. In my opinion it is bad that people are so obsessed about what is the color or sexuality and that they are made so crucial issue in everything.

You see, if we are feeling compelled to call another a sinner and point out their flaws, Jesus instructs us to instead turn that focus upon ourselves. It's far too easy to avoid looking at ourselves, by looking at others. "But what about them!", is a good way for us to avoid looking at ourselves. And what we find when we do look at ourselves, is that we aren't any better than anyone else. If we recognize our own flaws, and come to accept them, then we are less prone to fault find others.

Why should flaws be accepted? If something is really a flaw, I don't think it should be accepted. It can be forgiven, but I think it would be good to get rid of flaws.

Amen. And how do they be one as "we are one"? Love. Not judging and trying to fix each other. "Woman where are thy accusers? Neither do I condemn you." I have found that those who condemn others, are themselves afraid of being condemned. That's why they do that.

I think people should remember that Jesus continues by saying:

"...From now on, sin no more.”
John 8:11

Forgiveness doesn't mean that it is now ok to do anything.

Then you choose for yourself not to participate in something that you don't want to. No one is forcing you to march in a gay pride parade. But it sounds like you are saying Christians shouldn't allow gay pride parades to happen....

Would it be ok to you, if Christians arrange public parade, which essentially forces everyone to see it and pressures all major public organizations to be part of it?

I think pride parade is basically (actually bigger, because larger influence) the same as if School would have public common praying that all must listen. Would it be ok to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I feel that in Finland all schools. But I didn't mean to say there are such schools, only that if people want that to be taught, it should be in private schools.
...

The same with religion, capitalism and all other ideologies. All other worldviews than mine are from that of murders and other evil people.

 

[metis]

Ok, I meant that atheist pushing values is not only saying people are not allowed to pray. And by what I know, some atheists want that there is no common praying in the schools. It does not mean that they are forbidding private praying, only that which is public, for all to listen.

Communal prayer is allowed but, on the students' own time, and the public school cannot officially sanction it-- "separation of church & state". If one wants public prayer in schools, there are religious schools they can attend.

But I didn't mean to say there are such schools, only that if people want that to be taught communism, it should be in private schools.

In this context, how are you defining "communism" as there's different forms?

Secondly, are you basically saying that the students should never learn about "communism", however defined? Schools are for educating, you know.

Why do you think I am pro-death and think $ is higher than people? I don't support abortion, which is a good business for those who sell the body parts.

Abortion is just one area that is in reality "pro life". Without taxes to pay for various services, a lot more deaths would occur, thus this is what I was referring to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, I meant that atheist pushing values is not only saying people are not allowed to pray.

Pray all you want.
But don't disturb others.
Or force others to pray with you...which was
done back when I was in public school, &
government employed teachers did the deed.

 

[Windwalker]

If teacher is neutral, I don't think anyone knows is he "gay" or heterosexual. I don't think it is good that a teacher tells his sexuality to the class.

I agree. So you then see no reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to teach children then? I know that folks like Jerry Falwell certainty thought they shouldn't be allowed to teach children in the classroom fearing they might have a "gay agenda", whatever that is. You don't see that as in issue then. Correct?

If government can ban critical speech to vaccines for example, why not to everything else?

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but be careful in imagining "free speech" has anything to do with spreading false information that can damage people or put them at risk. You can't call 911 and say your neighbor's house in on fire when it isn't, and then claim you have a first amendment right to free speech. Take Alex Jones for a $1.5 billion dollar example of how slander and libel is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

But regarding the government shutting down those in the business of spreading malicious and damaging lies, I haven't seen that happen yet. Have you? Alex Jones was sued by private citizens. It was not a case brought on by the government.

No, I think freedom of speech is important. But I think it would be best if public schools have only neutral things, not books that can be interpreted to promote some ideology or lifestyle.

Any book can be interpreted to promote some ideology, or lifestyle. Do they have a Bible in their library? That certainly is promoting an ideology, isn't it? What about copies of Cosmo magazine? Those certainly promote certain lifestyles, such as fashion and dress for social acceptance.

I have zero idea what a "gay lifestyle" actually means, if that is what you were alluding to. That's another one of those fictions created by Jerry Falwell Sr. I've known several different gay men and women over the years, and they all have different lifestyles. Some are middle class, and rather conservative. Some are progressives. Some wear drab clothing. Some wear snappy fashions, and so forth. I know of know "lifestyle" that is "gay". What exactly is a "gay lifestyle"? Is there such a thing as a heterosexual lifestyle? Do you know? I don't.

If parents want their children to know something else, they can give that knowledge by some other way.

Do you think it's a bad idea to expose adolescent and late teen children in school to different beliefs and ideas that others hold, or should that be withheld from them so they stick close to home? Are schools about education, or indoctrination? In my view, the more knowledge that children are exposed to, the better informed their choices are. If you don't inform that of what's out there, then those choices are hardly well informed then, are they?

I don't believe knowledge is something to be feared. Simply providing access to it, is not at all the same as trying to promote it. Would you want to see that philosophy of suppression of ideas clamped down on our public libraries, so only approved perspectives are allowed, like in China?

A civil rights march is not about pushing blackness, but about promoting civil rights for everyone, which I think should be clear automatically. All humans should have same rights.

Why do think they are having the marches, if that is in fact what is being practiced? The reason they are marching, is because they are not being given the same rights. That is why you have unrest, because of things like targeting minorities in police actions and brutalities, mass incarcerations of disproportionate numbers of blacks compared with whites, zone discriminations that keep blacks out of white housing districts, and so forth. That is exactly why they are marching, because they are being denied that.

So when you see a gay pride parade, it is for similar reasons. Or a woman's march. Or any group where society is unfairly discriminating against them. As I said, this is to raise your awareness, that they are there, and they are complaining about unjust and unfair treatment.

I'm concerned that you call that "pushing that on you". Maybe if we weren't acting that way towards them, then you wouldn't need to hear them complain and protest and march and try to say "We're here. Treat us as equals". As a Christian, isn't compassion and understanding of the oppressed supposed to a core value? Telling them to shut up, and don't put that in my face, doesn't express that value, does it?

If it makes you uncomfortable, then you need to ask what it is that makes you uncomfortable? Hearing that they are treated unfairly? Having to hear that the culture you are part of treats others unjustly?

There should not be any reason to even think what the color or sexuality is.

I agree, but yet we do. And it's Right Wing political Christians like Jerry Falwell who made an issue of it in order to rile up people to gain political power. He was against racial desegregation. He did not want good white children having to go to same schools and black children. There should be no reason to single out gays, or blacks, or Jews, or any other group as a target for discrimination. But they do. If you want to do the right thing as a Christian, then you should fight against that deeply anti-Christian attitude.

In my opinion it is bad that people are so obsessed about what is the color or sexuality and that they are made so crucial issue in everything.

It is very bad. And the reason we have unhappy people in minority groups is because that is what we have been doing towards them and using our positions of power as politicians and clergy to justify it. It is us who made color and sexuality and gender an issue. Not them. You don't like the protests? Then blame Jerry Falwell and the Christian Right for doing evil in the name of Christianity. All we need to do is stand up for the oppressed. It's the Christian thing to do.

Why should flaws be accepted? If something is really a flaw, I don't think it should be accepted. It can be forgiven, but I think it would be good to get rid of flaws.

Back to what you mean by "accepted" again. Accepting differences means tolerating them. It does not mean either adopting them as your own values, or trying to get rid of them. You simply accept that others have different view, beliefs and practices, and you don't try to fix them or push them off a cliff or into a closet so you don't have to look at them. That's wrong. It's unloving. It's unChristian.

I think people should remember that Jesus continues by saying:

"...From now on, sin no more.”
John 8:11

Forgiveness doesn't mean that it is now ok to do anything.

Whatever you may see as another's sin, is not up to you do fix for them, or persecute them in the name of Jesus. You are not their Master. You are not their Lord. When Jesus said go and sin no more, he was speaking as God. If you say that to another, judge something they are doing as sin and tell them to sin no more, aren't you playing God?

For instance, if you were a 7th Day Adventist and believe you should only have church on Saturdays, are you justified in judging other Christians as sinning against God because they believe in worship on Sundays? The advice of Paul to you and those who feel a need to fix others for God, is don't you worry about that. That's between them and God, not between them and you. Romans 14 goes into great detail about this.

Would it be ok to you, if Christians arrange public parade, which essentially forces everyone to see it and pressures all major public organizations to be part of it?

You mean, like a Christmas day parade, or lights, or nativity sets, or.....

Answer, yes, I'm absolutely okay with it. Sorry you see that as forcing others to see it. That's the price of living in a free society. You can have your days. And so can they too. It's a give and take in a free society. Imagine if it were not a free society? Then say goodbye to your nativity scenes. I wouldn't want to see that, only to be replaced by a Nazi Swastika, would you?

I think pride parade is basically (actually bigger, because larger influence) the same as if School would have public common praying that all must listen. Would it be ok to you?

I don't think they're have a parade inside the school, are they?

 

[1213]

I agree. So you then see no reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to teach children then? I know that folks like Jerry Falwell certainty thought they shouldn't be allowed to teach children in the classroom fearing they might have a "gay agenda", whatever that is. You don't see that as in issue then. Correct?

I don't know Jerry Falwell at all, but I have to admit, it would be difficult for me to trust they would not do something wrong, which is why I would not like them to teach my children. But I would not forbid them to teach in public school, I just probably want my children to some other school.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but be careful in imagining "free speech" has anything to do with spreading false information that can damage people or put them at risk. You can't call 911 and say your neighbor's house in on fire when it isn't, and then claim you have a first amendment right to free speech. Take Alex Jones for a $1.5 billion dollar example of how slander and libel is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

But regarding the government shutting down those in the business of spreading malicious and damaging lies, I haven't seen that happen yet. Have you? Alex Jones was sued by private citizens. It was not a case brought on by the government.

I think Alex Jones trial is a ridiculous soviet style show trial. Freedom of speech doesn't exist, if "false" information can't be said. Instead of limiting freedom of speech, I think everyone should teach their children not to believe everything they hear or see without questioning everything. I don't have any reason to trust government tells correctly what is true and false. That is why it should not be the one who says what is true. I think this Covid case shows well that government and its propaganda media is not trustworthy.

Any book can be interpreted to promote some ideology, or lifestyle. Do they have a Bible in their library? That certainly is promoting an ideology, isn't it? What about copies of Cosmo magazine? Those certainly promote certain lifestyles, such as fashion and dress for social acceptance.

If school has a library, it could have anything, but then children should be allowed to go there only by parents' permission. And they should understand that there can be bad information.

However, I think it would be better, if public school is only focused on teaching basic things, like reading, writing, math... ..I don't think there should be anything that can be seen as promoting some ideology. Reading Bible or any other ideological book should be private and voluntary issue in my opinion, in other situation than public school.

Do you think it's a bad idea to expose adolescent and late teen children in school to different beliefs and ideas that others hold, or should that be withheld from them so they stick close to home? Are schools about education, or indoctrination? In my view, the more knowledge that children are exposed to, the better informed their choices are. If you don't inform that of what's out there, then those choices are hardly well informed then, are they?

Someone's well informed is others well misinformed. Teaching skills is education, teaching ideologies is indoctrination.

...
So when you see a gay pride parade, it is for similar reasons. ...

Sorry, I don't see that to be true.

If you say that to another, judge something they are doing as sin and tell them to sin no more, aren't you playing God?

If I tell what is said in the Bible, it is not playing God.

 

[1213]

...
Secondly, are you basically saying that the students should never learn about "communism", however defined? Schools are for educating, you know.

Abortion is just one area that is in reality "pro life". Without taxes to pay for various services, a lot more deaths would occur, thus this is what I was referring to.

I have no reason to believe more people would die without taxes. I believe it would be the opposite.

I don't think it would be bad to know the neutral definition of communism. But it seems to be impossible to have its neutral definition, which is why it is probably better not to have it at all.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't know Jerry Falwell at all, but I have to admit, it would be difficult for me to trust they would not do something wrong, which is why I would not like them to teach my children.

Do you believe homosexuals are more prone to be predatory than heterosexuals are? When you say you find it difficult to trust homosexuals, what is it you imagine they might do that sets them apart from other humans? Raping children? Teaching them to be atheists? Telling them how good sex is with the same gender? Can you be specific about this distrust?

BTW, I appreciate you being honest. But I'd like to understand where it is coming from better. Did you have a bad experience with a homosexual person at some point and now distrust them as a group?

But I would not forbid them to teach in public school, I just probably want my children to some other school.

You would prefer to not expose your children to homosexuals. What specifically is it you fear may happen? I suspect for some people it's because they might see they aren't different than anyone else really, and that might normalize them, rather than making the outsiders and deviants to their own societal norms? Is that your fear?

I think Alex Jones trial is a ridiculous soviet style show trial. Freedom of speech doesn't exist, if "false" information can't be said.

Actually, it's pure American constitutional law protecting average citizens from being defamed and harmed on display. Russian style lets lawbreaker off the hook. American style law holds them to account. In other words "Nobody is above the law".

Libel laws are about protecting you and me from being lied about and put in harms way because of those lies. Let's say you own a highly successful and well-respected restaurant. Then someone else who wants to take your customers publishes a fake report in the newspaper, a full page ad, saying that 20 people got poisoned and died in your restaurant due to you breaking all manner of health regulations, rats in the kitchen, employees urinating in the soup, and so forth. Everyone quits going to your business, and you have to shut the doors.

Do you believe that there should be no consequences to that person who spread 100% false information about you that ruined your business, because of the sacred right of "free speech"? Do you consider prosecuting that person who spread damaging lies that killed your business "Russian style show trials" to hold him accountable? Or does he truly deserve to be sued for damages?

What if he lit the restaurant on fire with gasoline and matches? That is what Alex Jones did to these human beings, parents suffering from the loss of their children as he ruined their lives with his lies in order to build up his audience to make money for himself. This is also a law that Jesus taught. "You reap what you sow".

Instead of limiting freedom of speech, I think everyone should teach their children not to believe everything they hear or see without questioning everything.

It's curious you say this, yet don't want them to be exposed to information that challenges their beliefs at home. You say this by saying children should need to get their parents permission to be exposed to material in libraries that goes against their beliefs. You don't see a double standard here?

I don't have any reason to trust government tells correctly what is true and false. That is why it should not be the one who says what is true. I think this Covid case shows well that government and its propaganda media is not trustworthy.

It's not the government who told us about the reality of the Covid and how it works and spreads. It was scientists. The government just simply relayed their expertise to us, as they should have! You can thank science for protecting you from being poisoned by dangerous materials in your food as well.

I'm glad to have government officials who respect and listen to science, and fear it when they don't and ignore the science because it is not politically advantageous to them personally. You should too. Science is our friend when it comes to things that politicians are not qualified experts in, such as disease control. You don't go to a nightclub singer to tell you about fire control measures, do you? I hope you would rather talk to actual fire control experts instead of some dude with a great singing voice at a nightclub, or a politician whose only experience with fire control is putting out a cigarette.

If school has a library, it could have anything, but then children should be allowed to go there only by parents' permission. And they should understand that there can be bad information.

Bad information in what sense? Differences of points of view, or false information such as saying there is evidence that the moon landing was faked?

Again to point out here, that above you said you think children should be exposed to other points of view, that they should be taught to look at, examine and questions the things they are taught - which would include the things they have been taught to believe at home as well. But now here you're saying they should be protected from it. Why are you making an exception here? What are you thinking of specifically?

Teaching skills is education, teaching ideologies is indoctrination.

This is where you are incorrect. Teaching skills is vocational training. That is not considered a form of higher education. A liberal arts education exposes children and adults, to a wide range of knowledge. Teaching welding skills, or shop mechanics is very different from that.

That is what American education is all about. A Liberal Arts education is defined as: "academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects."

We teach our children about civics, history, math, science, social studies, etc. Education that only focuses on training them for labor skills, is woefully inadequate in educating our children.

Sorry, I don't see that to be true.

Then why do you think gays have parades? Because they want to make converts? I don't understand. I think they call it "pride", because they have be told it was "shame". They are seeking to empower themselves after a life of being shamed by others, told things like they don't trust having their children taught by them, and the like. What other reason would there be for them marching like this, do you think?

If I tell what is said in the Bible, it is not playing God.

Ah, but you are playing God when you quote scripture at someone. They can quote scripture too that disagrees with you. Everyone can use scriptures to say what they want it to say. Take the Phelps family and their message of hate for instance.

 

[1213]

Do you believe homosexuals are more prone to be predatory than heterosexuals are? When you say you find it difficult to trust homosexuals, what is it you imagine they might do that sets them apart from other humans? Raping children? Teaching them to be atheists? Telling them how good sex is with the same gender? Can you be specific about this distrust?

BTW, I appreciate you being honest. But I'd like to understand where it is coming from better. Did you have a bad experience with a homosexual person at some point and now distrust them as a group?

You would prefer to not expose your children to homosexuals. What specifically is it you fear may happen? I suspect for some people it's because they might see they aren't different than anyone else really, and that might normalize them, rather than making the outsiders and deviants to their own societal norms? Is that your fear?

Person who is a homosexual, has probably different moral and reasoning than I have. The homosexuality, I think is one result of that. Every action comes from the mind of the person, if the mind can do stupid thing in some issue, it is possible also in other issues. So, for me the homosexuality itself is not the problem. For me the problem is the mind that produces the action. If mind can produce that action, it can also do many other actions that I think are wrong. It does not necessary mean that the person is going to rape someone, but because the mind is in one issue, in my opinion wrong, it can be also in other issues. That is why I can't trust such person. On the other hand, it is difficult to trust to anyone, because also heterosexual people can do wrong things. And this is why it would be best, if people don't have much power over other person's life in any case.

Libel laws are about protecting you and me from being lied about and put in harms way because of those lies. Let's say you own a highly successful and well-respected restaurant. Then someone else who wants to take your customers publishes a fake report in the newspaper, a full page ad, saying that 20 people got poisoned and died in your restaurant due to you breaking all manner of health regulations, rats in the kitchen, employees urinating in the soup, and so forth. Everyone quits going to your business, and you have to shut the doors.

Do you believe that there should be no consequences to that person who spread 100% false information about you that ruined your business, because of the sacred right of "free speech"? Do you consider prosecuting that person who spread damaging lies that killed your business "Russian style show trials" to hold him accountable? Or does he truly deserve to be sued for damages?

What if he lit the restaurant on fire with gasoline and matches? That is what Alex Jones did to these human beings, parents suffering from the loss of their children as he ruined their lives with his lies in order to build up his audience to make money for himself. This is also a law that Jesus taught. "You reap what you sow".

It is interesting that in Bible there is situation, if someone accuses other person of some crime and tries to seek punishment for him falsely, he deserves the same punishment he was seeking for the other falsely.

If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to testify against him of wrong-doing, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges who shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness is a false witness, and has testified falsely against his brother; then shall you do to him, as he had thought to do to his brother: so shall you put away the evil from the midst of you. Those who remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of you. Your eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Deu. 19:16-21

So, if Alex Jones really made false accusation to really harm someone in that way, maybe he deserves the same punishment that he was seeking for the other person. However, I have not seen evidence for that. And if we start to prosecute journalists in that way, I think there are lot of them that deserve the same treatment. Perhaps this will be a good precedent for others also.

It's curious you say this, yet don't want them to be exposed to information that challenges their beliefs at home. You say this by saying children should need to get their parents permission to be exposed to material in libraries that goes against their beliefs. You don't see a double standard here?

I think children should be under their parents' control before they are adults. They are not mine, nor governments. And children are more vulnerable to misinformation. That is why I think it is good, if their parents decide for their own children.

We teach our children about civics, history, math, science, social studies, etc. Education that only focuses on training them for labor skills, is woefully inadequate in educating our children.

Why do you think so? (And I meant with skills, math, reading/writing, how society works, basic skills for to be part of the society).

Ah, but you are playing God when you quote scripture at someone. They can quote scripture too that disagrees with you. ....

I don't see how quoting a scripture is playing God, sorry. Also, I don't think they could quote such scripture.

 

[metis]

I have no reason to believe more people would die without taxes.

It's called "history", so maybe do some research about the Great Depression and even deaths from starvation in the 1950's on the Navaho Reservation and in Appalachia.

 

[1213]

It's called "history", so maybe do some research about the Great Depression and even deaths from starvation in the 1950's on the Navaho Reservation and in Appalachia.

How would more taxes have helped in those situations?

 

[metis]

How would more taxes have helped in those situations?

It was the reason why Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid was passed. Also, the support for Native Americans on reservations was upped in the 1960's.

My question back to you is why do you elevate money over having compassion for those in need? Maybe reread the "Sermon On the Mount" and follow up with Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats [Matt. 25].

 

[Windwalker]

Person who is a homosexual, has probably different moral and reasoning than I have.

Why would you say that? Do they steal and lie? Are they devious and deceitful in their interactions with others? Do they say one thing and do another (aside from hiding in closet because they justly fear other's hatred and social rejections of them)?

If the homosexual did not tell you they were a homosexual, would you be able to tell that they are any different than you are? Certainly their moral characters aren't setting them apart any. You can tell a shady character when you meet one, or it is soon revealed that they are bad people. But a gay man? Other than him telling you he is gay, you wouldn't know it. They don't beat animals, or rape children, or act any more immorally than any other human being. Aside from their sexual partners being of the same sex, they aren't any different than anyone else.

The reason I point this out is that homosexuality has nothing to do with moral character or moral practices. It has to do with one thing only. Natural sexual attraction. That's not a moral choice. That's biology. Just like you and I find ourselves attracted to different types of females. Some we are attracted to sexually (biologically), and others we are not.

I find blonde women more attractive that way for myself. But that does not mean that because I find brunettes less attractive, or maybe not attractive at all to me, that there is something deviant in my moral character. It's simply taste and biological programming. I assume you will have to agree with this, correct? I'm not immoral because I am attracted to blondes over brunettes, right?

It's exactly the same thing for homosexuals. Morals has nothing to do with whom they find themselves biologically attracted to. It's not a choice for me being more attracted to blondes. It's not a choice for them being more attracted to those of the same gender.

Why would you consider homosexuality a choice? Is your heterosexuality a choice for you? Could you choose either a man or a woman, but because you choose women you're moral? But if you didn't view is as immoral, you could go either way? Or is your not choosing a man not a choice for you, because you simply don't find other men attractive that way?

For me, it's the latter. I'm simply not attracted to other men, the same way I'm not attracted to some types of females. The attraction just isn't there. I don't choose that. So I don't understand why some consider it a choice, other than it is a choice for them? They are attracted to both men and women, but they choose to not act upon those same sex attractions because they believe it is immoral to do so.

Can you see the sound reasoning here? Why else to certain straight males call homosexuality of choice? It must be because to them personally, it is a choice. Either that, or they just aren't being honest in calling it a choice. And dishonestly is in fact a moral choice.

The homosexuality, I think is one result of that. Every action comes from the mind of the person, if the mind can do stupid thing in some issue, it is possible also in other issues.

No. Your natural impulses come from your natural biology. They aren't conscious choices. They are hormones. When I was an early teen and my hormones were raging, and clouding all my thoughts thinking about sex all the time, was that a choice?

Do you believe you could just shut that off at will at that age, by say stabbing yourself with a fork in your leg repeatedly when you had impure thoughts? Or were you a Zen Buddhist monk who meditate so intensely that you could set yourself on fire and feel nothing? Of course not. I'm sure you were just a normal kid like me.

Not everything we do, not every action, comes from a conscious choice.Who we are attracted to, is not a choice. It's our biology. It's genes. Thoughts and ideas about these things trail a far ways back behind them, like the caboose on a train. The engine is your biology. The caboose is your thoughts.

So, for me the homosexuality itself is not the problem. For me the problem is the mind that produces the action.

As I've just pointed out, it's not the mind that produces the attraction. So then understanding this now, you must confess both, that homsexuality is not the problem as you said, and that their minds choices are not the problem either, if they are simply following their biology, like I do mine in finding blondes attractive over brunettes. Unless you considered being attracted to blondes a biological flaw than needs correction?

If mind can produce that action, it can also do many other actions that I think are wrong. It does not necessary mean that the person is going to rape someone, but because the mind is in one issue, in my opinion wrong, it can be also in other issues. That is why I can't trust such person. On the other hand, it is difficult to trust to anyone, because also heterosexual people can do wrong things. And this is why it would be best, if people don't have much power over other person's life in any case.

So your distrust is based upon your own reasoning here, which I've just shown is flawed. "By their fruits you shall know them", said Jesus. Unless you see them doing bad things, like harming others, dishonesty, divisive behaviors, aggression, violence, and so forth, their fruits should show you the truth. They are trustworthy.

To not extend trust to others who aren't like you in their tastes and preferences that they don't really have a choice over, like liking avocados or blondes isn't a choice, then that would be unChristian. That's otherism. That's tribalism. That harms others. It hurts others. It rejects them because they don't conform to the way you think and feel about things. That is the opposite of an agape love, which Christians are to follow. "Love works no ill", says Paul. "Love is the fulfilment of the law".

If you distrust them simply because they are Samaritans, then is that the way of Jesus? Didn't he embrace her with love, despite her being an outsider to his religion's idea of righteousness and good moral character?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think he has a good point, if others push their godless values to others, why they would not be allowed to do the same?

Values that don't depend on God are the only ones that can be common to "the people."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would it be ok to you, if Christians arrange public parade, which essentially forces everyone to see it and pressures all major public organizations to be part of it?

This happens quite a bit, BTW.

 

[1213]

This happens quite a bit, BTW.

Is it ok to you?

 

[1213]

Values that don't depend on God are the only ones that can be common to "the people."

Why do you think so? God for example says "Don't murder" why could that not be common for all people?

 

[1213]

…The reason I point this out is that homosexuality has nothing to do with moral character or moral practices. It has to do with one thing only. Natural sexual attraction…

I think it is more about is the person reasonable or not. The homosexual act is not reasonable. It is basically the same as trying to eat through ear, because ear is also hole in the head. If person does something that is not reasonable, I try to avoid that person, because person who is not reasonable, may do also other unreasonable things.

…I find blonde women more attractive that way for myself. But that does not mean that because I find brunettes less attractive, or maybe not attractive at all to me, that there is something deviant in my moral character. It's simply taste and biological programming. I assume you will have to agree with this, correct? I'm not immoral because I am attracted to blondes over brunettes, right?

As long as you don’t like redheads everything is perfectly fine.

Seriously talking, I think you should have tolerance treatment, I am sure you would learn to like brunets as much in no time.

…Why would you consider homosexuality a choice? Is your heterosexuality a choice for you? Could you choose either a man or a woman, but because you choose women you're moral? But if you didn't view is as immoral, you could go either way? Or is your not choosing a man not a choice for you, because you simply don't find other men attractive that way?

I think most adult people have sexuality and it could be compared to appetite for food. All people need to eat, but it is personal choice what they choose to eat. People can develop different taste for food and learn to like different things. Now in case of food, there are unhealthy foods and people can choose not to eat them. I think same is with sexuality also. People can learn/develop bad habits, that are not healthy or reasonable. And they could choose to satisfy sexual appetite in healthy way. But, as in the case of food, it may be difficult, if person has already developed a bad taste.

This doesn’t mean that homosexuals necessary choose to what they are attracted. I think it is something that develops when person grows and is affected by all experiences in life. And same is with your hair taste. It is possible to direct sexual appetite to another direction. I believe that is why LG…+ propaganda is directed to young people, because that is how they can make fresh homosexuals. At young age it is easier to redirect development to a bad taste.

…

Do you believe you could just shut that off at will at that age

I think it is possible. But in normal cases I don’t think it is necessary.

…Not everything we do, not every action, comes from a conscious choice.Who we are attracted to, is not a choice. It's our biology. It's genes. Thoughts and ideas about these things trail a far ways back behind them, like the caboose on a train. The engine is your biology. The caboose is your thoughts.

How would biology define to what you will become attracted? I think attraction doesn’t come from biology, but from the experiences in life, from what people learn to like.