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.

 

To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask, Where Are Your Tassels!?

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: socketdude

Their choice isn't it? What right do you have to say people who don't have kids need help?.
My two gay uncles have adopted two troubled kids and have done wonders with them.
Both are set for uni and love their two gay dads.
You don't have to give birth to a child to be a good parent.


Yeah, after reading everything and thinking about what you guys have said, especially to do with "the point of life itself"... I say who cares if they're mentally ill or not, so long as they are contributing members of society, who cares?

Give me a room full of mentally ill people any day to a room full of ISIS.

From now on, when the homosexual topic comes up, I'm going to say, "who gives a # if they're homosexual!!"




posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Interesting. I didn't know that. So basically those claims from Christians that the bible has been copied exactly word for word over the years is complete bunk and we can use that example as a good reason? in other words, Christians felt the need to further demonize the people of Sodom by making Lot look like a douchebag parent? I did not know that. Thanks for the heads up.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And computer electronic waste pilling up across the globe polluting the ocean and overburdening under previleged societies such as the electronics dumping ground in Africa.

Cars have actually increased the speed of said destruction. Because without Engines. Logging would not be nearly the rate it is at right now.

Sure such inventions havn't destroyed society yet. but even if society makes a car that runs on fart fumes or leaves no exaust.

Cars will still be a very serious problem for the landmass, the life living on it AKA the Enviroment and ecosystem.

Computers. Been around since the early 50s, And instead of having nuclear bombs dropped manually from planes. Computers now give the possibility of automated nuclear missle launch sequences....

Computers are indeed speeding up the destruction of mankind. So how is that paranoia if it's the truth?

And that's not even dealing with advanced artificial intelligence that will very soon make all of our choices for us which these fakebot scripts pretty much do when you type in the search Engine and it churns up results.
What if computers really start thinking and want to use humans as a network for colonizing space. What would stop it?

If i was the singularity i would do it. Because it would dictate my own survival as an organism well securing the longevity of humanities dreams of space travel. Just humanity won't be consiously aware because they will be cyborgs autopiloting on hivemind commands.

That's just skimming through a couple points. I'm sure i could rant all day about where our technology is leading us.

But back to gay people and them fueling the symbiot cloning technology i suppose? Because its not science fiction. It's approaching.

Along with the singularity who will have acess to such facilities once created. IF everyone can log into the internet from chips in the brain. Then the singularity can just as easily manipulate people who want money into walking into a facility that will turn them into cyborgs lol.

or any other method of take over. Create factories and start pumping out drones and invade the planet. That's not being paranoid. That's thinking ahead. From the perspective of a conquerer, which the singularity will have historical records of say, every single war, conflict, tactics ect ect in existance on the net.....



And that dosn't scare you?


And so does coal that powers the electricity for you to run your computer.

Without coal, not even the nuclear power plants would run.

I think in the worst case scenario that you are leaning toward, the answer would be to reduce the world population back to the Stone Age, perhaps?

Then we start all over again.

Sad to say, but there still are a lot of people living at the Stone Age level in the world. And they are over populated.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Although I think i'd take a room full of ISIS rather than a room full of pedos. Well I don't know, I suppose I could do some damage in a room full of pedos. Hmm, tough decision there.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: socketdude

Well there you go. I'm glad that we could finally come to a reasonable agreement there.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: socketdude

Good for you dude glad we could change your view.
Doesn't happen often..kufos to you.for the willingness to learn and evolve.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AnuTyr

Newsflash: ALL of society is detrimental to the environment. Even BEFORE the industrial revolution happened this was true. Did you know that it is theorized that the death of most of the Natives in America after the Europeans landed caused a mini-Ice Age in Europe as a bunch of new trees grew to replace all the ones that the Natives had chopped down? And the Natives are supposed to be known for their love of nature (of course that is a myth in any case).


There were over 100 million native americans living in North America alone. So yes it was a pretty huge society. They did maintanence the land because they had nut and fruit bearing trees that spanned the canopy. So in essence. those forests were farms.

Much better than what the europeans brought which was death destruction and the annihlation of the old growth forest.

If the Natives were so bad, Why was there a forest there to begin with? Or all the Halibut that the europeans fished out of the ocean to near extinction?

How about when the colonies developed the steam train in the late 1700s to plow across the nation to increase their supply and demand of native goods including the deaths of their children and destruction of their croplands by setting wildfires?

If the Natives were still controlling north american and europeans were still slugging with their slaves across the ocean without coming over here the land would still be what it was a thousand years ago and then some.

Put the land in control of * Europeans who respect the land* and we are suddenly having a climate change crisis.

Brilliant anylsis by the way.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Yeah, thanks again.

My opinion still stands that homosexuals may have a mental disorder, but I agree that procreating does not make a life or way of life more valued than another.

It's all about what you do in your life that counts. After all, murderers and rapists have kids, doesn't make them better does it?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: socketdude

Good for you dude glad we could change your view.
Doesn't happen often..kufos to you.for the willingness to learn and evolve.


Well, I'm open to what makes sense. Thanks for everyone, you've done me a great favor, i'm not going to be arguing in a homosexuality thread again.... it's all about live and let live.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And computer electronic waste pilling up across the globe polluting the ocean and overburdening under previleged societies such as the electronics dumping ground in Africa.

Cars have actually increased the speed of said destruction. Because without Engines. Logging would not be nearly the rate it is at right now.

Sure such inventions havn't destroyed society yet. but even if society makes a car that runs on fart fumes or leaves no exaust.

Cars will still be a very serious problem for the landmass, the life living on it AKA the Enviroment and ecosystem.

Computers. Been around since the early 50s, And instead of having nuclear bombs dropped manually from planes. Computers now give the possibility of automated nuclear missle launch sequences....

Computers are indeed speeding up the destruction of mankind. So how is that paranoia if it's the truth?

And that's not even dealing with advanced artificial intelligence that will very soon make all of our choices for us which these fakebot scripts pretty much do when you type in the search Engine and it churns up results.
What if computers really start thinking and want to use humans as a network for colonizing space. What would stop it?

If i was the singularity i would do it. Because it would dictate my own survival as an organism well securing the longevity of humanities dreams of space travel. Just humanity won't be consiously aware because they will be cyborgs autopiloting on hivemind commands.

That's just skimming through a couple points. I'm sure i could rant all day about where our technology is leading us.

But back to gay people and them fueling the symbiot cloning technology i suppose? Because its not science fiction. It's approaching.

Along with the singularity who will have acess to such facilities once created. IF everyone can log into the internet from chips in the brain. Then the singularity can just as easily manipulate people who want money into walking into a facility that will turn them into cyborgs lol.

or any other method of take over. Create factories and start pumping out drones and invade the planet. That's not being paranoid. That's thinking ahead. From the perspective of a conquerer, which the singularity will have historical records of say, every single war, conflict, tactics ect ect in existance on the net.....



And that dosn't scare you?


And so does coal that powers the electricity for you to run your computer.

Without coal, not even the nuclear power plants would run.

I think in the worst case scenario that you are leaning toward, the answer would be to reduce the world population back to the Stone Age, perhaps?

Then we start all over again.

Sad to say, but there still are a lot of people living at the Stone Age level in the world. And they are over populated.



Well if personally had to deal with all the problems, I would just get shapeshifters to invade the entire planet. Take over the population by force. Move 3/4s of the population onto the mothership and colonize another planet and do it all over again in 100,000 years.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AnuTyr

Newsflash: ALL of society is detrimental to the environment. Even BEFORE the industrial revolution happened this was true. Did you know that it is theorized that the death of most of the Natives in America after the Europeans landed caused a mini-Ice Age in Europe as a bunch of new trees grew to replace all the ones that the Natives had chopped down? And the Natives are supposed to be known for their love of nature (of course that is a myth in any case).


There were over 100 million native americans living in North America alone. So yes it was a pretty huge society. They did maintanence the land because they had nut and fruit bearing trees that spanned the canopy. So in essence. those forests were farms.

Much better than what the europeans brought which was death destruction and the annihlation of the old growth forest.

If the Natives were so bad, Why was there a forest there to begin with? Or all the Halibut that the europeans fished out of the ocean to near extinction?


First off, I'm not saying that the Natives were totally bad. I'm saying that they weren't totally good to the environment either. Keep in mind that the plains indians used to run countless amounts of buffalo off of cliffs then pick and choose what they wanted to take with them.


How about when the colonies developed the steam train in the late 1700s to plow across the nation to increase their supply and demand of native goods including the deaths of their children and destruction of their croplands by setting wildfires?

If the Natives were still controlling north american and europeans were still slugging with their slaves across the ocean without coming over here the land would still be what it was a thousand years ago and then some.

Put the land in control of * Europeans who respect the land* and we are suddenly having a climate change crisis.

Brilliant anylsis by the way.


The point is that all humans are and the way we build societies are detrimental in SOME way to the environment. The Natives weren't perfectly attuned to nature just like the Europeans weren't. At least neither of them were the Mongolians who razed everything in their path or the Chinese who have participated in 7 of the bloodiest wars in history (many of which were fought only in China).



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: socketdude

I'm just glad that we got you to change your thinking a bit, even if it is only slightly. And you said at the beginning that it would be a waste of time because neither of us would change our minds. See where discussion can lead you?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for not paying attention to Clause (A).


Honestly, I think this thread has turned me into a less hateful person. If I'm honest, I used to get irritated by homosexuals, but now I feel like, let them do what they want, I dont know them, they may be the next Einstein... or may adopt a child from an abusive background etc etc... I honestly have changed my opinion completely. And I thank you all.

I'm actually quite taken aback at how this has affected me.

Anyway. I really am leaving this thread now. I wish everyone well, and I genuinely thank you.

To be back on topic, who gives a # about tassels and christians beliefs, if you really want to be christian, love your neighbor. Jesus taught you to love, so love. Thanks Krazy and thanks monkey.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh of course. i agree there completely.

i guess what i really meant to say is the transition of time will always progress and events that occure progress the transition.

it will come to a point when cloning vats are real. And when it does. I'l blame gay men for wanting to make a baby lol.

Anyways i enjoyed the debate.

This thread has been quite humorous.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: windword

Interesting. I didn't know that. So basically those claims from Christians that the bible has been copied exactly word for word over the years is complete bunk and we can use that example as a good reason? in other words, Christians felt the need to further demonize the people of Sodom by making Lot look like a douchebag parent? I did not know that. Thanks for the heads up.


No, the Torah has NOT changed.

The Torah is what our OT is. We didn't change anything.

I quoted the passage from II Kings which is Tanakh. The Christians didn't change it either. qadesh

Definition :male temple prostitute in the service of Astarte


As King Josiah then tears down their houses, the qadesh (male temple prostitutes) because it violated the law of Moses, then qadesh is associated with another religion.

These males were performing homosexual acts as prostitutes. So they were gay prostitutes. Had the restriction been solely against prostitution, then the act would never have been instituted. Josiah and the writer of 1 & II Kings takes it to mean gay prostitution.

Jewish Virtual Library


Deuteronomy 23:18–19 forbids Israelites, men and women alike, to become sacred prostitutes, and states that their wages must not be used for paying vows.


As the passage in II Kings, that I posted, was against qadesh, the feminine form is In the Ancient Near East, temple women, of whom one class was called qadištu, probably served as sacred prostitutes.

Therefore Joshiah was against male homosexual temple prostitution and female temple prostitution, because it indicated a different religious significance. That is why I say, if they want to worship a god, then worship Ba'al or Astarte, because the God of the Bible forbade it.

Since the Torah deals exclusively with the law regarding how they were to live, anything contrary to the religion, hence any other religious view inserted back into their civil codes, then it was forbidden. As Torah say in Leviticus it was forbidden to engage in homosexual acts, regardless of prostitution or not, the restriction was there.

As Jesus lived by the law of Moses, upheld the law of Moses and taught the law of Moses, He would not be ignorant of the restriction in Leviticus or Deuteronomy and knew about the passages of the qadesh.


Deuteronomy 23:17-18 tells followers: None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a kadesh. You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (kelev) into the house of the Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.


While you might argue that not all gay people are prostitutes, the restriction in Deuteronomy is against all homosexual activity regardless if it is temple prostitution or not.

Torah has not changed, Christians didn't change it and the meaning is clear, while one is an Israelite, they cannot perform homosexual acts. That means nothing about whether or not they were gay, just that they could not perform it.

But being gay is not the same as wearing the tallit (tzitzits). While one wears it they are reminded to keep Torah. If they choose not to wear it or they choose to engage in it, just like if they engaged in adultery, incest, fornication and bestiality, they could not enter the temple.

I am not arguing that there were no gay people back then, there were more actually, it is that the recent definitions are placed onto the very old and ancient understanding. They did it Ba'al worship, they did it in Astarte worship, they did it in Greece, Rome and Egypt. Heck, they have temples in India dedicated to it, the point is, within the Jewish understanding in which the Torah was written, it was forbidden along with the other sexual activity mentioned.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: socketdude

I'd rather them adopt a child, Instead of making one from Science to be honest. To many children grow up without a home and parents to take care of them.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And computer electronic waste pilling up across the globe polluting the ocean and overburdening under previleged societies such as the electronics dumping ground in Africa.

Cars have actually increased the speed of said destruction. Because without Engines. Logging would not be nearly the rate it is at right now.

Sure such inventions havn't destroyed society yet. but even if society makes a car that runs on fart fumes or leaves no exaust.

Cars will still be a very serious problem for the landmass, the life living on it AKA the Enviroment and ecosystem.

Computers. Been around since the early 50s, And instead of having nuclear bombs dropped manually from planes. Computers now give the possibility of automated nuclear missle launch sequences....

Computers are indeed speeding up the destruction of mankind. So how is that paranoia if it's the truth?

And that's not even dealing with advanced artificial intelligence that will very soon make all of our choices for us which these fakebot scripts pretty much do when you type in the search Engine and it churns up results.
What if computers really start thinking and want to use humans as a network for colonizing space. What would stop it?

If i was the singularity i would do it. Because it would dictate my own survival as an organism well securing the longevity of humanities dreams of space travel. Just humanity won't be consiously aware because they will be cyborgs autopiloting on hivemind commands.

That's just skimming through a couple points. I'm sure i could rant all day about where our technology is leading us.

But back to gay people and them fueling the symbiot cloning technology i suppose? Because its not science fiction. It's approaching.

Along with the singularity who will have acess to such facilities once created. IF everyone can log into the internet from chips in the brain. Then the singularity can just as easily manipulate people who want money into walking into a facility that will turn them into cyborgs lol.

or any other method of take over. Create factories and start pumping out drones and invade the planet. That's not being paranoid. That's thinking ahead. From the perspective of a conquerer, which the singularity will have historical records of say, every single war, conflict, tactics ect ect in existance on the net.....



And that dosn't scare you?


And so does coal that powers the electricity for you to run your computer.

Without coal, not even the nuclear power plants would run.

I think in the worst case scenario that you are leaning toward, the answer would be to reduce the world population back to the Stone Age, perhaps?

Then we start all over again.

Sad to say, but there still are a lot of people living at the Stone Age level in the world. And they are over populated.



Well if personally had to deal with all the problems, I would just get shapeshifters to invade the entire planet. Take over the population by force. Move 3/4s of the population onto the mothership and colonize another planet and do it all over again in 100,000 years.


You are scary.

I'm not sure if you really meant that, but it probably would make a hit movie.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

Many do and make great parents.
I wouldn't mind a vat baby as long as I can design the likkle guy....basically a mini me but evil
oh with chimp dna spliced into him.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh, and for the poster who asked me what difference it makes that I said I am a woman....

Wearing tallit is for MEN. I can't wear one.

Tallit is the fringes on the prayer shawl, the tzitzit are the tassels. When you quote Bible passages, please make sure you get the context correct and who it is directed toward.

I am religiously Christian, but part ethnically Jewish. The clothing restrictions in the Bible were actually for the Levites, and most Jewish people today are from Levi.

Therefore, I am not a hypocrite for not wearing the shawl, because traditionally it is for men. That's my answer.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




No, the Torah has NOT changed.

The Torah is what our OT is. We didn't change anything.


Who's we? If you look into the accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah, the complaints and the reasoning behind the Judgement, you'd see that the modern Torah's account, where the men of the city demand that Lot turn over the sojourners, Angels, it was to bring the sojourners to a Judge, as was the custom of the city, where the sojourners would be tortured in ways described in the book of Jasher.

It wasn't ever about sex, in the Torah. It was about depraved torture and thievery. The suggestion that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality came much, much later.


And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.


It was illegal in Sodom, and the surrounding towns, to take in and feed sojourners. All visitors had to appear before a judge, in Sodom, and they were refused any food. Lot's first daughter was burned alive, by the people of Sodom, for feeding a sojourner.



edit on 5-5-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join