It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: WarminIndy
No, you find them disagreeable because you aren't reading all of my "twoddle".
It is simply WRONG to marry girls off, but what about the Bacha Bazi Boys of Afghanistan? Those boys are trained to learn how to service men. But that can't be wrong, can it? It's just a little pederasty, after all. I see, pederasty is absolutely fine as long as it is legal. Is it pedophilia when it comes to the Bacha Bazi boys, or is that just men enjoying young boys who are feminized?
No i find this abhorrent as well, in fact i find any sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18 is abhorrent and classed as paedophilia. Despite the western world having an age of consent on average of 16 i find distasteful as we should be letting children stay as children for as long as possible as once your an adult it all goes down hill very quickly.
That however does not explain your views whereby you believe homosexuality is the same as paedophilia.
No, I did NOT say it was the same.
I said that the gay community cannot sweep under the rug the SAME ARGUMENTS that pedophiles are using. And the arguments are :
1: If two people really love each other
2: I am sexually attracted to....
But knowing this, if a young gay man that is 16 is vocally open to older gay men about his sexual desire to have a "daddy" or "bear" and the older man reciprocates, is this pedophilia? It falls back under "if two people really love each other". Correct?
Do you know the movie For a Lost Soldier? It was hailed as a sensitive and touching story about "awakening homosexuality" in a boy. The gay community embraced this movie, called it beautiful....but it depicted a scene of what was clearly rape of a young boy.
New York Times called it "romantic"
And the comments were that it was beautiful. And yet you would have us convinced that when we raise this issue, it gets swept under the rug, you tell us that pedophilia is wrong, and yet one movie that clearly shows rape of a child, the gay community calls it beautiful and romantic. See the hypocrisy there?
originally posted by: flammadraco
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: WarminIndy
No, you find them disagreeable because you aren't reading all of my "twoddle".
It is simply WRONG to marry girls off, but what about the Bacha Bazi Boys of Afghanistan? Those boys are trained to learn how to service men. But that can't be wrong, can it? It's just a little pederasty, after all. I see, pederasty is absolutely fine as long as it is legal. Is it pedophilia when it comes to the Bacha Bazi boys, or is that just men enjoying young boys who are feminized?
No i find this abhorrent as well, in fact i find any sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18 is abhorrent and classed as paedophilia. Despite the western world having an age of consent on average of 16 i find distasteful as we should be letting children stay as children for as long as possible as once your an adult it all goes down hill very quickly.
That however does not explain your views whereby you believe homosexuality is the same as paedophilia.
No, I did NOT say it was the same.
I said that the gay community cannot sweep under the rug the SAME ARGUMENTS that pedophiles are using. And the arguments are :
1: If two people really love each other
2: I am sexually attracted to....
But knowing this, if a young gay man that is 16 is vocally open to older gay men about his sexual desire to have a "daddy" or "bear" and the older man reciprocates, is this pedophilia? It falls back under "if two people really love each other". Correct?
Do you know the movie For a Lost Soldier? It was hailed as a sensitive and touching story about "awakening homosexuality" in a boy. The gay community embraced this movie, called it beautiful....but it depicted a scene of what was clearly rape of a young boy.
New York Times called it "romantic"
And the comments were that it was beautiful. And yet you would have us convinced that when we raise this issue, it gets swept under the rug, you tell us that pedophilia is wrong, and yet one movie that clearly shows rape of a child, the gay community calls it beautiful and romantic. See the hypocrisy there?
I most certainty would NOT have called it beautiful, I would have called it as it was an older Paedophile taking an advantage of a 13 year old child. However do not tarnish the whole LGBT community because of some write up to a movie in the New York Times as that would be the same as me tarnishing every straight man on ATS as a paedophile due to the actions of some dirty old men in third world countries taken young girls some of which are no older than 8 years old as their wives and raping them. Would not really be very fair and its not very fair you tarnishing 350,000,000 LGBT people around the world with the same brush as these paedophiles. See the hypocrisy there?
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
Your ''argument'' regarding mark 7 holds no water. Not because you are an atheist, but because of your inability to process scripture holistically. Taking one verse out of context isn't a bright way to go about on a theological discussions. this has established that atheists shouldn't be talking about religious matters because they simply DON'T get it and waste peoples time talking about things they don't understand.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I am a film reviewer and when it was presented to me, I watched it but when it got to the "love scene" as it is called, I wrote in my review that is was a movie about pedophilia. Do you think my article that called it for what it was, was published? No, because I was not allowed to upset the sensitivities of the gay community.
originally posted by: TheRegal
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I am a film reviewer and when it was presented to me, I watched it but when it got to the "love scene" as it is called, I wrote in my review that is was a movie about pedophilia. Do you think my article that called it for what it was, was published? No, because I was not allowed to upset the sensitivities of the gay community.
It wasn't published because you missed the point entirely. Calling this movie a "movie about pedophilia" would be like calling the beauty and the beast a "movie about bestiality". Hell, Romeo and Juliet might as well be a "play about lust, fornication, and suicide" If you're a film reviewer, you're a bad one, sorry.
You're so off topic on this thread by the way. This thread is about halal/kosher laws, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is only being presented in this thread as a means to try and point out an alleged hypocrisy in the Bible.
originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: WarminIndy
You have already completely derailed this thread, so I will not be responding, want to private message me, be my guest but the OP had diddlysquat to do with Homosexuality being classed as pedophilia. However like most of these kinds of threads it gives you and other prehistoric bigoted minded individuals a platform to spurt your homophobic views.
Jesus made one statement about the Law that often causes confusion: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)
Christians have struggled to understand exactly what Jesus meant. At first reading, this seems to say that all the Old Testament rules and rituals must still be observed. But Jesus and His disciples did not observe many of those rules and rituals, so it could not mean that. It is frequently pointed out that the term "the Law" could have many different meanings at the time of Jesus:1,2
The ceremonial laws including "clean" and "unclean" lists, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, ritual washings, etc.
The civil law regulating social behavior and specifying crimes, punishments and other rules
The moral and ethical laws, such as the Ten Commandments
The Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible)
The scribal law - the 600+ rules formulated by the scribes that everyone was expected to obey
The Scripture as a whole
Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).
However, Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict scribal rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18). Neither did they perform the ritual hand washings before eating (Matthew 15:1-2). In contrast to the dietary rules of the Law, Jesus said no food can defile a person; it is bad attitudes and actions that can make a person unholy (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23). Jesus frequently criticized the scribal laws (Matthew 23:23, Mark 7:11-13) and some aspects of the civil law (John 8:3-5, 10-11).
Therefore, Jesus may have been specifically teaching that the moral and ethical laws in the Scripture would endure until the end of time. That would be consistent with His actions and other teachings. Through His teachings and actions, Jesus revealed the true meaning and intent of the Law. It is also pointed out that Jesus, Himself, is the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 26:28, Mark 10:45, Luke 16:16, John 1:16, Acts 10:28, 13:39, Romans 10:4) The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ended forever the need for animal sacrifices and other aspects of the ceremonial law.
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
This thread isn't about people of 'all types' being masters of 'self justification', is it?
originally posted by: abe froman
It's not just Christians, people of all types are masters of self justification.
Jesus PERFECTED the law. So he threw out things like stoning a person to death, and instead installed mercy and forgiveness.
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
That is a false interpretation .....
.... and then didn't do as the pharisees said.