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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

Sure I guess since I said in my OP there are Christians who bash homosexuals my thread is a back up the homophobia fest.

Have at it.


I already did and in my first reply was what got the most notice.




posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Thanks for being another great example of someone quick to defend their bigoted views and ignore the intent of the OP.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

Thanks for being another great example of someone quick to defend their bigoted views and ignore the intent of the OP.


What was said in my comment to you?

I simply gave my reason for my statement by using science. Is science now not good enough for you?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

For any species to continue it must do so through the biological process of breeding. Some species of plants are intersexed, therefore capable of producing within itself another plant of its own kind. Intersexed people cannot do that because they simply can't breed with themselves.

Mammals are a species that continue through breeding with other mammals of the same kind. (notice something interesting here?)


The most imteresting thing i noticed was useage of biblical terminology in an attempt to integrate it into the science. To continue a lineage, one must breed with other members of the same species, not others of the "same kind". I know it seems pedantic and nit picky but the distinction is important.


So from an evolutionary and biological perspective, for humans to continue as a species, humans must follow the same biological processes, because (according to evolutionists) they were evolved with the sexual and reproductive organs for that very purpose.


According to "evolutionists"? According to biologists would be more accurate. Again, not to be overly nit picky but it just comes off as a derogatory slur anytime I see someone use the term 'evolutionist' in the context you supply. Back to the point at hand though... Of course humans, just like any other organism, must reproduce if the species is to comtinue. Its basic biology. I don't think that premise is in dispute.


In the struggle for survival, evolutionists teach that the stronger survive (meaning that the ones who produce the most offspring are the strongest).


Thats absolutely false. 150 years ago it was postulated that survival of the fittest was ome of the mechanisms behind evolution but in the last century and a half we have learned a tremendous amount, added to things that can be supported and have thrown out things which can not be supported. Lamarck's "soft inheritance" being one example of something that has been tossed by the wayside because it isnt true and can not be supported.

Lets look at some "lower class" Americans(though I loathe the term, its the most apt descriptor here) who are often on public assistance or barely scraping by on crappy jobs and have a propensity to breed like bunnies. Does that make them "stronger"? Lets compare them with a couple who have graduate level degrees, wait until they are in a financial situation to be able to afford the raising of children and tend to be a little older and have fewer children when they do have them. The people who have advanced degrees and the resources to properly take care of their children on paper certainly look stronger or more fit compared to someone barely scraping by or on public assistance don't they?


Therefore, it must stand to reason then that those who are gay must not be the strongest samples of the evolved Homo Sapien species.


As in my example above, its not necessarily the strongest who pass on their genes, its simply the one who is able to breed the most. This is what happens when you're at the top of the food chain and have no natural predators to pick off the weakest members of a given group. Additionally, gay people do in fact pass their genes on to offspring


If that is the case, then they are not going to contribute to the biological continuance of the Homo Sapien, and therefore, their lines will die out while the rest of the species will continue on.


Many people who are in same sex relationships have in tge past or do reproduce naturally and have been in heterosexual relationships. I'm the result of an example of this being true.


So maybe evolution messed them up? Maybe they are evolved to be gay and ordained then by nature to limit the population of Homo Sapien?


Evolution isn't a conscious entity. It doesnt "screw up". If this thesis were to be true, then no homosexual couples would have any parental instincts and adopt, in vitro , surrogacy or engage in sex with members of the opposite sex in order to raise a family.


The species that produces the most offspring...if a member of a species doesn't produce offspring, then they are weaker than the rest of the species group.

True or not?


False.
edit on 5-5-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

Thanks for being another great example of someone quick to defend their bigoted views and ignore the intent of the OP.


What was said in my comment to you?

I simply gave my reason for my statement by using science. Is science now not good enough for you?


lol no you used WarminIndy-science which isn't the same thing.

And you seem to think that homosexuality is hereditary?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

Thanks for being another great example of someone quick to defend their bigoted views and ignore the intent of the OP.


What was said in my comment to you?

I simply gave my reason for my statement by using science. Is science now not good enough for you?


lol no you used WarminIndy-science which isn't the same thing.

And you seem to think that homosexuality is hereditary?


It could be, some say it is.

Unless they breed though, they aren't going to contribute to the species, right?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Are members of the same species group the same kind or not?

You are Homo Sapien Sapien and your wife is Homo Sapien Sapien, so you are the same kind within the animal kingdom.

Unless there are different kinds of Homo Sapien Sapiens. Then we would be varieties, right?

Same kind, members of same species group.




If this thesis were to be true, then no homosexual couples would have any parental instincts and adopt, in vitro , surrogacy or engage in sex with members of the opposite sex in order to raise a family.


In vitro and surrogacy still involve male and female, right?

Evolution has dictated that Homo Sapien Sapien must continue through male/female contribution. Otherwise Homo Sapien Sapien could pop out offspring without needing to breed.

And by the usage of in vitro or surrogacy means that they had some intrinsic problem that prevented them from breeding properly..i.e. a genetic mutation within the DNA that determines sexual attraction. So it does make them weaker, because if there were no such thing as extrinsic help, they could not continue a line. Right?

So they would still need to breed.


edit on 5/5/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
It could be, some say it is.


Who?


Unless they breed though, they aren't going to contribute to the species, right?


Depends on what you mean by contribute, but not being able to reproduce is not in itself 'bad' or worthy of the condemnation and the hate that Christians continually pour onto homosexuals.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: WarminIndy
It could be, some say it is.


Who?


Unless they breed though, they aren't going to contribute to the species, right?


Depends on what you mean by contribute, but not being able to reproduce is not in itself 'bad' or worthy of the condemnation and the hate that Christians continually pour onto homosexuals.


Have I said anything here about hating them?

My God, it's like you people think we have never had family members who are or were gay or that we have never met anyone gay.

Christianity isn't a closed system.

My own grandfather was gay, shall we talk about him?

No, you ASSUME we don't know any, therefore we must all hate them.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Here are some of the different types of marriage in the OT:

Marry your brother's wife:
"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her." Deuteronomy 25:5 ESV

War trophy wife:
"10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife." Deuteronomy 21: 10-13 NIV

Rape wife:
"28 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ESV

Polygamy (at least Solomon isn't bigoted):
"King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, 'You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.' Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray." 1 Kings 11:1-3 NIV

So what was the OT definition of marriage again?
edit on 5-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

This thread has nothing to do with science or evolution.

I think you saw "To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask" then glazed over the rest. Perhaps made an assumption about the content of the OP, or read only what you wanted to read. Decided I was asking questions about homosexuality. Decided the thread was about justifying condemnation of homosexuality with your archaic beliefs. Made some pseudoscientific rant about homosexuality being against evolution. Perhaps trying to show how it's against natural and divine laws. I'm not sure.

When I pointed out you were wrong about the intent of the OP, you seemed not to care. Seemed to make it out to be my fault most people are talking about why homosexuality is a sin or unnatural. Seemed to not care when I said plainly it was about Christians that use the Bible to condemn others for this that or the other thing (the example I used was the topic of homosexuality. Something that you prove is "hot button"), but ignore the Bible when it comes to other things god considers just as detestable.

I made it clear that not all Christians believe the Old Testament laws applied to them, or were to be obeyed. I made it clear that there are some who believe that they do apply to Christians, are are supposed to be followed. It was specifically to those Christians that I addressed, "Where are your tassels?" Clearing making the point that if they are going to claim to high heaven that the laws found in the Old Testament are to be obeyed, use various scriptures in the Old Testament (whether or not they can also be found in the NT) to condemn people as sinners (again using homosexuals as the example because it's a popular topic of debate), that they are hypocrites.

Hypocrites because in one hand they use the Old Testament to condemn and claim hellfire awaits some, while ignoring verses that don't suite them and would call them into condemnation in the other hand.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Here are some of the different types of marriage in the OT:

Marry your brother's wife:
"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her." Deuteronomy 25:5 ESV

War trophy wife:
"10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife." Deuteronomy 21: 10-13 NIV

Rape wife:
"28 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ESV

Polygamy (at least Solomon isn't bigoted):
"King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, 'You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.' Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray." 1 Kings 11:1-3 NIV

So what was the OT definition of marriage again?


1: Levirate marriage...long before the law of Moses and an ancient NE practice not only found in Israel but all over the Levant, hardly a Jewish concept. Not practiced today.

2: Rape has consequences. We do the same thing today, if a woman is raped she is entitled to monetary compensation. Should we not allow rape victims to have monetary compensation? In the world view of the Levant, women had to be compensated or at least protected and her future needed security.

3: IF, why do you guys always miss that one? That also was a practice in the Levant long before Moses.

4: Solomon also married all those women despite the general acceptance of one man and one woman. Just because he married all those women does not mean it was acceptable.

Why is it no one knows these customs in the Levant long before Moses and that much of it was also accepted within Ba'alism?

Hey, maybe we could all be Egyptian, those pharaohs thought nothing of marrying their sisters.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Regardless of where those marriages came from and who practiced them, they are CLEARLY sanctioned by the bible. They are also CLEARLY different than what someone in this day and age would call "traditional marriage".



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

You picked out Christians but you didn't pick out the other religions that also have something to say against it. I am a Christian, I gave you reasons. If you don't like my reasons then maybe pick other religions to talk about.

But the OT laws, you allowed a non-Christian to tell you a lie about Sodom and that was ok with you.

My choice was to reply the way I choose to see fit within the argument. If you don't like it, then ignore it. That's all I can say. But I answered.

You didn't seem to notice me saying that my grandfather was gay...let's not discuss that one. You didn't seem to notice I said I was part ethnically Jewish...you only latched onto the one thing, implying that all Christians are hypocrites.

Yet, at the time when Paul even talked about it in the NT, knowing full well that homosexuality was commonly practiced in that part of the world, including the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians who had homosexuals in their religious systems, you didn't address that.

Nope, the one religion you don't like you ask why we don't wear the tassles, meaning that you think we are hypocrites. Apparently there must have been a problem with homosexuality for Moses to address it, then for Paul to address it.

Homosexuality is a behavior, wearing tassles isn't.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Regardless of where those marriages came from and who practiced them, they are CLEARLY sanctioned by the bible. They are also CLEARLY different than what someone in this day and age would call "traditional marriage".


Who? The Christians or the Jews?

Was Christianity only from Jewish philosophy? It may have been at the beginning, but clearly had Greek and Roman influence.

Jesus explicitly held up the Jewish law of one man and one woman. That is something you can't get around.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I assume you are referring to Matthew 19:3-7?

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

I'm pretty sure that Jesus is outlining his position on divorce there and not so much as to what is and isn't a marriage. Jesus is clearly saying that when a man and woman are married before god, that no man can separate them in the eyes of god. He ISN'T saying that a man and a man can't marry or that a woman and a woman can't marry.
edit on 5-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




Homosexuality is a behavior, wearing tassles isn't.


Of course it is! How a person clothes themselves represents obedience to customs and laws. I'm sure that "God" had a reason why he commanded the corners of fabrics to be tasseled! Most likely because "TASSELS ARE FABULOUS!"

(And they keep the weave from unraveling!)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

I assume you are referring to Matthew 19:3-7?

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

I'm pretty sure that Jesus is outlining his position on divorce there and not so much as to what is and isn't a marriage. Jesus is clearly saying that when a man and woman are married before god, that no man can separate them in the eyes of god. He ISN'T saying that a man and a man can't marry or that a woman and a woman can't marry.


Hmm, so Jesus is saying that a man and a woman are married, which mean then that the allowance of divorce can only be within that context?

So gay people who are married then shouldn't be allowed to divorce because there's no Biblical precedence for gay divorce?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

I assume you are referring to Matthew 19:3-7?

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

I'm pretty sure that Jesus is outlining his position on divorce there and not so much as to what is and isn't a marriage. Jesus is clearly saying that when a man and woman are married before god, that no man can separate them in the eyes of god. He ISN'T saying that a man and a man can't marry or that a woman and a woman can't marry.


Hmm, so Jesus is saying that a man and a woman are married, which mean then that the allowance of divorce can only be within that context?

So gay people who are married then shouldn't be allowed to divorce because there's no Biblical precedence for gay divorce?


More like vice versa. Jesus is saying that straight couples can't divorce. So if you want to follow your above logic, only gay couples can divorce because they aren't specifically mentioned.
edit on 5-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy




Homosexuality is a behavior, wearing tassles isn't.


Of course it is! How a person clothes themselves represents obedience to customs and laws. I'm sure that "God" had a reason why he commanded the corners of fabrics to be tasseled! Most likely because "TASSELS ARE FABULOUS!"

(And they keep the weave from unraveling!)




Not all Jews today wear them.

Not all Jews find they are necessary, just like there are a lot of Jews who are gay.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join