The End of Gender, neither Transgender nor any other.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Scientifically speaking, the only reason out bodies maintain our sexual plumbing is for procreation. If we eliminate the need for that, then evolution would ditch that plumbing in a heart beat as it is expensive in terms of survival resources for our bodies to maintain.

Not quite. You see, we use our tools for two different purposes. Please, if we're going to eliminate sex, at least let's keep the function where we can aim the tool in any direction to eliminate the water. That's a very convenient mechanism. That's why the population vote for the male body type. Pure convenience of action, in the critical alternative function.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: AMPTAH
Are you really calling this thread of yours new scriptures being laid down?

Let's call it "an interpretation, and commentary" on existing scripture, rather than new scripture.

And do you really expect that this agenda will have continued to unfold 500 years from now? And that the people 500 years from now will go, "Oh wow Amptah, how did he know.. he must have been almost godlike in his prescience"?

Yes, I fully expect "abovetopsecret.com" to continue to exist 500 years from now. We digitize and archive everything today. So, somewhere, someone will have backed up all these forum discussions, for future generations to sift through. When the time come, they will surely say, Amptah knew us before we even existed. But, Amptah has no great power, he just reads word and repeats the word in the posts. The word was written long ago. Only that some things are "sealed".

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. -- KJV, Daniel 12:4

Sealed, that is, until "knowledge is increased" sufficiently, that an interpretation that makes sense becomes possible.

Well, we have sufficient knowledge today to interpret some of these old sayings. People didn't believe that Jesus could be born of a virgin, 2000 years ago. But, today, we can impregnate a virgin, with artificial insemination, and she will give birth without knowing her husband. So, what was inconceivable long ago, is now possible today. Knowledge has increased. So, we begin to understand.

I'm happy to hear any alternative interpretation that anyone would care to provide. I only see one outcome. Perhaps, there are other ways to interpret these things. If there are many interpreters, it's likely that one of us only, will be proven right, in the future.

Escape this timeline by alchemy.

a reply to: AMPTAH

That is a pretty depressing dystopian future you are wishing on us.

I hope that I never have to live in your world.

a reply to: AMPTAH

What I was wondering when you wrote: "They have to wonder, looking at the new scriptures being laid down today, how we could possibly know of their condition, way back when.", was, if this was a reference to what you're writing right now in this thread?

Come on now, this interpretation of yours is as subjective as they come. The cherry picked quotes you use are very vague. They're not very clear at all, you could come up with a million different interpretations that would seemingly make sense of these quotes. And people have..

I don't know what else to say, I think this is a very liberal interpretation. You don't seem to think so.

The change is being shoehorned unto us, and that's how we know what the scriptures say.

If this was as obvious as you make it seem. Why are there a million different interpretations then? If it really was as clear cut as you make it seem, others besides you would have come to the same conclusion. But this is a perspective I've never heard of before.


That is only if society doesn't collapse. 500 years is a long time.

I take it you really believe this will happen then. I really doubt that.

I only see one outcome. Perhaps, there are other ways to interpret these things. If there are many interpreters, it's likely that one of us only, will be proven right, in the future.

There are, most Christians seem to have their own interpretation.

In the end you're not coming at this from a rational point of view. Your starting point is your assumption that biblical prophecies are inviolate, and that they surely will come true. In reality this may not be the case.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: AMPTAH

That is a pretty depressing dystopian future you are wishing on us.

I hope that I never have to live in your world.

If there's reincarnation, you'll be there. I'm not wishing, just describing the future that I see coming.

When you're reborn, you may look back at these heterosexual times, and think, how depressing it must have been to live in those olden times, with all the constant claims of harassment, and not being able to use some restroom because of gender and such, and all the kids that were being born with thousands of genetic diseases, and deformities, and various physical challenges, just to get around in life. The future will probably seem to be utopia, to you. Never knowing a woman, in lust, so never missing the sex, anyway. Instead, other things delight the soul:

Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind." -- The Gospel of Thomas #17

Until you're there, you really can't say which universe you'd prefer, can you?

a reply to: AMPTAH

The7y wont be able to make any babies from just random DNA. They can take RNA/DNA and place it into an egg to create an Embryonic Zygote but they still have to have the natural parts. Any non natural parts wont work.

Another thing is start watching for these genetically altered babies. You will see increase in diseases, low Immune systems, heart problems all of which they are saying they can take away by genetic alterations.

As far as gender male will have xx and females will have xy. If you take the DNA of a transsexual who has had sex change from man to woman they still have XX chromosomes that show them as male. can't change that.

They might eliminate the need for sex to have babies but that is all

I think it is good you have also come to the realization that we (humans) have already walked this same path, and that the warnings and history of it is embedded into religious texts around the world. They are interpreted as religious to us because those are the words we use, otherwise it these texts ca easily be called history books with life guiding principals.

However if you believe that the picture you painted is the accurate representation of our future, the its a good things we are always being reset.

You are also aware the that these cycles are becoming shorter and shorter, because we seem to get to the end faster and faster. I don't think it will be another 1000 years though. I am more inclined to believe the reset will be here in the next 200 years or so.

Than humanity gets to start the game of empire all over again after eventually discovering how to make fire again. It always starts with fire, and ends with fire (nukes). The flood was just the planet doing what it does, it is an interruption likely due to the industrialization of the planet.

Young boys started wearing their moms pants like 10 years ago or more with the Emo thing, who started that stuff ? I do know that young men in the 80s in Ireland wore skinny jeans as we call them with super tight legs so essentially anyone wearing those is biting off of an Irish dudes style from the 80s. How will they change the voices of men next ?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mandroid7
To implement this plan, you would have to shut down the pubs.

Scientifically speaking..

At what point in the plan do you stop the bom-chicki-waa-waa?

You think taxes were fought for?

Scientifically speaking, the only reason out bodies maintain our sexual plumbing is for procreation. If we eliminate the need for that, then evolution would ditch that plumbing in a heart beat as it is expensive in terms of survival resources for our bodies to maintain.

So yeah, eliminate the need for sex to procreate and you might as well eliminate sex.

Realistically we will never get to the point of stopping sex, so it is a moot argument.

And scientifically, take a look at the clit. Sometime.

Strictly for pleasure. There are way more physical, emotional pleasure connections going on to say it is just a reproduction function.

This drive won't stop with Amazon.com Babies.

That was the only real point of my joke.

a reply to: AMPTAH

well since GENDERS MENTAL that might be a trick to eliminate. you mean SEX. And the best way to go is hermaphrodites that are viable and able to impregnate. also they are more managable than males. If you want to enslave humans you choose the weaker and more able to control.

a reply to: yuppa

I am already clamoring for that millionth of a second where my retinas and skin is burned away in a hot light and I swiftly become a stream of ash blasted out into the atomic winds of eternity. Can we get this thing going?? I would rather not waste any more of the Earth's recovery time before we have to start over and try again as a species.

May my bones rest in pieces.

originally posted by: Mandroid7

So yeah, eliminate the need for sex to procreate and you might as well eliminate sex.

What happens is that we "re-wire" the brain. Sex is all about eating that fruit called "orgasm".

It's just a "sugar". Thats' why people who love sex also love chocolate and sweets.

Instead of linking that "sugar" to the physical activity of pulling and pushing another body of flesh towards and away from you, we'll link the "sugar" to a mental creative activity.

Whenever you have an original thought, you'll taste the sugar.

Already, as many people have discovered, all you really need to reach orgasm is the right thoughts. The partner isn't absolutely necessary, they just help move things along a bit faster.

So, we'll reward people for coming up with "creative ideas", instead of having them "create babies".

That's what we need in the future, anyway, the creation of new ideas that benefit society, not increased population.

All you ever wanted to know about the future, but didn't know where to look!

Good thread. A lot to digest. Science. The wonderment that brought us the A Bomb. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. I would think that Science in it's purest form would want to see nature take it's course. Because although mankind has used science to make our life easier in a lot of ways, it still neglects to see the long term effects of the decisions made in it's name. If you believe in global warming, then science has brought us past the no turning back scenario. So let us be cautious, in our yearning, for science to be the epitome of our life achievements.

Let us not forget about the bonds that form between Mother and Child. Would it hinder the child's feelings of needing to be loved, and to love? A world without love may be efficient and less demanding, but it is a world I would wish on no one.

You're assuming people would simply go along with this bizarre and crazy concept, huh? Sociology is vast and complicated. There are many things involved and I can tell you that switching to factory born babies won't happen in our lifetime. Actually, I detest the idea of our species manufacturing our children.

You certainly have some radical and ambitious plans, although not for our age. I believe your next life or two would come around to that idea, assuming we are still alive after 500 or so years.

a reply to: AMPTAH

You may be very well a head of all of our time. Your heart is in the right place. And that could solve a lot of problems. What are the problems that you see in the future?

a reply to: AMPTAH

In other Words , because of Technological Advancements , Man will one day Lose his Humanity . Aldous Huxley was a Visionary .

I think this is all backwards.

Love is natural and very much intertwined with our consciousness and existence as a whole. Humanity should not try to eliminate love, we should be focusing on love and evolving In our understanding of what love truly is.

Love could be the driving force behind the universe. It makes up the human spirit and defines us. Moving away from it would be devolution and a step towards hell. Not an improvement.

I wonder if an artificially born human would have a soul? If so that would mean the soul must come from an outside source sometime during development?

If the artificially born human did not have a soul that would mean somehow the mothers body has a part in creating the soul, what process could that be?

Further, what would a soulless person be like?

a reply to: AMPTAH

People didn't believe that Jesus could be born of a virgin, 2000 years ago. But, today, we can impregnate a virgin, with artificial insemination, and she will give birth without knowing her husband. So, what was inconceivable long ago, is now possible today.

First you would have to prove that virgin births actually occur in reality.

There is a whole world of difference between artificial insemination, using sperm donor, or stored sperm and a virgin birth.

To use your faulty logic...people didn't believe you could use a wheel on a cart drawn by a horse to transport goods. When the first cart came along do you think they imagined one day their would be wheels on petrol driven car's?

Their is sufficient historic evidence for the first combustion engine, unfortunately the same cannot be said about the Virgin Mary or Jesus.