Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?--A Religious Letter

page: 9
130
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Interesting post but that just shows how ignorant the writer is in the matters of the old testament.

I didn't find it funny.. I felt sorry for this poor guy making a fool of himself speaking of matters he knows nothing about.




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I don't find it enlightening to hear a group over and over ...demand acceptability from others based on their sexuality..homo or hetero.

Freedom of speech. It may be annoying but if you curtail freedom of speech for one group, it'll happen for others.


This is to thinking people...what is on the outside..not on the inside. I should not have to tell you this. I am not interested in the sexuality of others in this manner..hetero or homo and don't find it at all enlightening.

You must not like black people for the same reason then.


I also don't find it "enlightened" of a group to attempt to censor others in the manner they are want to do. I don't find it tolerant or free speech. I should also not have to explain this to you.

Could you post an example with source showing "them" attempting to censor someone?


What I am against is such cheap drama techniques in order to censor her or anyone else who disagrees with a position.

You must really hate Christians, Republicans, FOX NEWS, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbough, and Hannity then.

jfj123

What you're saying is that since you don't agree with them, they shouldn't have a voice. You would have been right at home in nazi germany.



I am not saying this at all..but you are once again demonstrating the drama techniques and attempting to deceive others by this very drama technique..

That's what it sounds like to me. I'm just reading what you're writing



.as if you have the moral and ethical high ground here. You are using a very similar technique as did this individual who asked the question of the beauty contestant. It is veiled censorship and attempting to smear others by making them look like "Nazis."

And you're using the same technique to try and smear me
I love IRONY



This is a standard cheap political technique of the lowest and most predictable kind.

Continuing attempt at "demonstrating the drama techniques and attempting to deceive others by this very drama technique as if you have the moral and ethical high ground here. You are using a very similar technique as did this individual who asked the question of the beauty contestant. It is veiled censorship and attempting to smear others"

OOPS
who knew that would come back to haunt you so quickly




I said...



I don't approve of anyone ..homo or hetero ...who defines themselves by their sexuality


And you said..


We all partially define ourselves based on our sexuality.



And I say to you...that you should get out more. Not everyone does this. You are exaggerating again..for drama purposes.

Notice I said "partially" ? And yes we do. It's in our genes.


I also said...I am not against sexuality...I just think people are so much more than sexuality. Do you know the difference??

Yes I do
It just shows you're not very tolerant of people with different views then yourself.



What I am saying is that people are so much more than sexuality...hetero or homo. Yet we have a group of people among us whose total claim to fame is their sexuality. Talk about stupid.!!

And we also have groups who's total claim to fame is being christian, muslim, black, mexican, italian, etc...


jfj123, this comes across initially as apples and oranges..unless you are attempting to paint this movement as a devout religion.

And yet another attempt at drama

Of course I'm not stating that. If this is a problem, remove religion and add African American or Italian American, etc....



There are readers out here who can see what you are doing or attempting here..and the drama techniques which accompany your attempt.

What I find REALLY amusing and HIGHLY ironic is that you're using the same "drama techniques" to try and prove your point



But you're trying to do it to others right now !



I am not the one using Hitler or the Nazis as an attempt to default through or make others feel guilty or less.

You're not using the word "nazi" but you're doing the EXACT same thing you're accusing me of
As example :


I keep telling you ..you need to get out more.

This is your " attempt to default through or make others feel guilty or less."
OUCH !! That's gotta hurt



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

let me ask you a question. From reading my posts how did you get the idea I was afraid of homosexuals? From what I have written it seems an odd thing to say.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 

When people assassinate the character of someone simply because they disagree with them that is not free speech. When large groups of people people go to someones home and taught them day and night that is not free speech. Free speech does have limits. I know you don't understand this because your post just proved it.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Allar
 


I know that they are against freedom of speech ..particularly on this topic by the manner in which they treated her in the media. This is an indicator of how they censor people who do not go along with their views. They immediately dug up whatever they could on her to post and paste it across the nation. This is called intimidation techniques for speaking out on a topic or view in a manner in which they disapprove. It is called censorship. Another word for this in reference to jfj123's post is that they "Judged" her. Obviously they approve of judging again ..in censorship..in only one direction. They are not as tolerant as they expect from others.

Someone asked her opinion on a topic...and when they did not give an approved answer....they censored her. They deliberately activated a whole machine to go after her. One definition of censor/censorship...is a formal reprimand...to be formally reprimanded.
This is what a whole media did.

I found this to be in extremely bad taste, method, and motive. It is a form of intimidation..coercion...particularly when this contestant did not ask the question. This method is very telling when you see it used over and over and over...to attempt to control/censor other peoples and realize that the media and body politic is in on it.

They are not in favor of this kind of free speech. That is obvious to people who can think for themselves. We are going to see more of this kind of censorship/reprimand...lack of free speech. Buckle up.


jfj123 ,

you posted ..

Freedom of speech. It may be annoying but if you curtail freedom of speech for one group, it'll happen for others.


Agree here...this is already happening in the case of the homosexual groups. They do not tolerate freedom of speech by those who oppose them...and particularly anyone in the public. They have organized a whole machine to go after them and dig up any kind of dirt on them in order to censor/reprimand them in the media...or press. And the press goes along with it. And the media in this country is a shill for the body politic. I call this a default setting...like this computer..it is allowed to play through...unquestioned ..unchallenged by opposing views.

I said..

This is to thinking people...what is on the outside..not on the inside. I should not have to tell you this. I am not interested in the sexuality of others in this manner..hetero or homo and don't find it at all enlightening.


to which you replied..

You must not like black people for the same reason then.


It is you back on your earlier post, page 8, who stated people should be judged by what is on the inside...not on the outside. Remember that??

Here is your quote??


Might I suggest finding a deep, dark cave and move in then. People are finally becoming enlightened enough to judge people based on who they are on the inside instead of who they are on the outside. This is what is called ENLIGHTENMENT.


The concept of what I am speaking ..is obviously very difficult for you to fathom in your emotive state.

Sexuality is a personal and private matter. Once you come out in the open with it and attempt to glorify yourself by your sexuality..you become open..on the outside ..not inside. And when you are ignorant enough to use your sexuality as the total/sole claim to fame and entitlement..you are now on the outside..showing your ignorance.
Only public education/entitlement beliefs can dumb and stupid a person down so far that they think this is a standard of excellence in anything.
When you are dumb enough to believe in this entitlement enough to go after people who disagree with you and voice their opinions ..you are showing your motives and entitlement beliefs.

I am not speaking here against sexuality..I am speaking against ignorance. This concept seems to escape you in your emotive state.

What this group of which I am speaking has done is moved from inside/internal characteristics and traits to outside/external traits and then boast of it as excellence and demand the right to be passed/play through as excellence...to be accepted based on their sexuality.
I don't agree. I don't think it is smart, enlightened, or intelligent.

And now here in drama you attempt to broaden out your Hitler technique by implying I am a racist and don't like black people. You are scrapping the bottom of the barrel in attempting your own method to do what this person Perez Hilton did to the contestant. I finally look up the name.
It does not work on me. You need to get out more. To practice real enlightenment, intelligence, and tolerance.


Could you post an example with source showing "them" attempting to censor someone?


I am astonished that you should even ask this question after how this group and the media shilling for them treated this woman. It should be obvious how they reprimanded/censored this contestant for speaking her mind..after it was Perez who asked her the question. Shame on him and this movement. They obviously have no shame..no honor..only entitlement motives...ie...expediency.
And entitlement motives is becoming the modus operandi for many groups today.

I posted ..


What I am against is such cheap drama techniques in order to censor her or anyone else who disagrees with a position.


to which you replied..


You must really hate Christians, Republicans, FOX NEWS, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbough, and Hannity then.


Good point here you have made. I particularly don't like Sean Hannity because of a technique he uses in cutting off his guests, when they make their point or positions, in order to get his/Hannity's points across. I call this bullying. It is exactly what the Homosexual groups and the media do and did to this contestant in the pageant..in reprimand/censorship/bullying.
The other person of whom I also dislike and disagree is this Chris Matthews. Chris does exactly what Hannity does and I don't like or approve of it from either. In each case it is a type of rudeness and bullying/censorship.


That's what it sounds like to me. I'm just reading what you're writing


You are indeed reading what I am writing. But it is obvious by your posts that you are very emotive...combined with a heavy dose of drama/entitlement. No problem with me here ..I merely make note of it for the readers out here.


And you're using the same technique to try and smear me I love IRONY


Once again I am not the one using the Hitler/Nazi smear techniques. In your emotive and entitled state this seems to escape you. Once again..I point this out.


OOPS who knew that would come back to haunt you so quickly


Sorry jfj123. But when you resort to this kind of mockery..it comes across as desperation and trying to get in the last word. Very feminine and also insecure. No problem by me. It does not work on me ..just like the Hitler techniques.


We all partially define ourselves based on our sexuality.



Notice I said "partially" ? And yes we do. It's in our genes.


Yes you did say "partially." The problem here with this group and the media using/misusing it to deceive us, is that this group ...exclusively uses sexuality to define themselves. I called this ...method..stupid.

It is a deceptive technique you use in trying to put everyone out here in the same box as this group which uses its sexuality to demand acceptance. Not very smart of you. Partially is not the same as what this group is doing.

And also ...partially is not publicly or exclusively. I should not have to tell you this difference.


Yes I do It just shows you're not very tolerant of people with different views then yourself.


This is exactly my point about this group and the media and politicians shilling for them.


And we also have groups who's total claim to fame is being christian, muslim, black, mexican, italian, etc...


Your losing me here..apples and oranges..


And yet another attempt at drama
Of course I'm not stating that. If this is a problem, remove religion and add African American or Italian American, etc....


I am not the one going off on all these tangents in order to support my emotions and drama.
You have a very heavy affinity for the flesh and fleshly examples. No problem by me. I merely make note of the difference in motives and methods of operation between you and myself.
You are very much willing to go on different tangents to justify your belief system. Your religion if you like because you are obviously very devout and zealous in it.
Not everyone out here is of the flesh. I think you have great difficulty with this concept and must attempt to drag others in to the flesh...where you are and your faith is. You are not accustomed to dealing with people not in this venue of yours for which you take for granted as being normal and entitled.

The rest of your post is just mockery so I wont bother replying to it.
I think with practice and thinking that you can do better than you currently are capable.

Hope you one day are able to figure life out....outside the flesh...internal concepts verses what you are currently doing...external.

I would offer you this suggestion to help you in your posting. Leave the scattered drama techniques at home...try some history, real knowledge and backbone when making your posts. I say this because the drama techniques cover up alot of insecurity...in lieu of real worthy points.
With so many posters out here today...emotions are what passes for excellence and the moral ethical high ground today. I don't happen to think so.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   


Sexuality is a personal and private matter. Once you come out in the open with it and attempt to glorify yourself by your sexuality..you become open..on the outside ..not inside. And when you are ignorant enough to use your sexuality as the total/sole claim to fame and entitlement..you are now on the outside..showing your ignorance.
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Why shouldn't homosexuals use their sexuality as their sole claim to fame and entitlement? Afterall it is at the very heart of the hatred and bigotry leveled against them. Sexuality is never "hidden" unless you're homosexual pretending to be hetero. Everytime a male/female couple walks down the street hand in hand they are declaring their sexuality for all to see. When you watch a TV commerical or open up a magazine you see Heterosexuality displayed for all to see right before your eyes.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
more bronze age nonsense, this is a hilarious skewering of the fallacy and sheer idiocy of quoting outdated and morally questionable religious edicts


Im gonna email this to 20 folks , best humor with an edge of truth in many a moon



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Censorship? Hardly. If they were making ad hominem attacks on her then I agree with you that that was out of line as it's the views that should've been attacked not the person, but for you to say that just because a large number of people mobilized against her and her views that means she was censored, I find a little hard to swallow.

First off, the homosexuals didn't make the media do anything, they brought their grievances forward, the media realized that this was a good story, and picked up on it themselves. The reason there was such mobilization against her is because those kinds of views are not acceptable amongst the bulk of society (I like to think anyway) and people were disgusted by her statement. If her right to speak her opinion wasn't taken away, which by the way you talk it wasn't, then her rights to free speech were not violated. Overwhelming condemnation by society is not encroaching on her right to free speech, she can still say it, people just don't agree with her and wanted to make it known the extent of their opposition.

As for her not being the one who answered the question, it's totally irrelevant. She was in a public contest and she knew damn well that anything she said could, and would, be open to scrutiny. That was her decision when she opened her mouth.

The only other thing I have to say here is that I find your condescending attitude extremely annoying, unproductive and frustrating. Especially your repeated use of the term "it's obvious to thinking people" because you're clearly trying to put yourself above those who disagree with you. Well guess what, disagreement with your point of view does not an ignorant person make, so maybe you should try getting off your high horse and debating the issue with a little more humility.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

So you are willing to have your name and home address given to the main stream media? You are ok posting your name and address on the internet so anyone and everyone who disagrees with you can come to your home 24/7? So crowds of people can come to your home day and night and carry on for weeks and weeks? Really?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
FWIW......

Why all of these 'religious restraints'?

Control.

How did they arrive at these ideas/memes??

Kaneh Bosm in the Old Testament:

www.cannabisculture.com...

Any other thoughts or ideas would be welcome regarding this influence on religious dogma.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Originally posted by Helmkat


Why shouldn't homosexuals use their sexuality as their sole claim to fame and entitlement? Afterall it is at the very heart of the hatred and bigotry leveled against them. Sexuality is never "hidden" unless you're homosexual pretending to be hetero. Everytime a male/female couple walks down the street hand in hand they are declaring their sexuality for all to see. When you watch a TV commerical or open up a magazine you see Heterosexuality displayed for all to see right before your eyes.


Sexuality is never made public display in the manner in which this group tries to force acceptance on an unwilling public. Also the manner in which the body politic and media shill for them.

I also said...I disapprove of it hetero and homo both. I take it you read my previous posts.

I also disapprove of how the manufacturers and advertisers use and misuse sexuality to sell us on everything and anything..particularly our children before they even have time to be just children. I find this particularly corrupt and disgusting...both hetero and homo.

This is just another cheap advancement of a doctrine and religious dogma which is thousands of years olde. A return to the olde ways. Nothing new about it. Technology only helps the corruption to spread faster among those who do not know much history.


Allar,

They indeed attacked the person ..thank you ...and that in particular is what I so disapprove of in lack of tact ..and honor. They did indeed ask for her views..and then proceeded to personally attack her...with self righteous indignation and entitlement.

I found this type of conduct to be reprehensible, disgusting, and very telling.


First off, the homosexuals didn't make the media do anything, they brought their grievances forward, the media realized that this was a good story, and picked up on it themselves.


The media is become a willing and complicit partner in this and other "change " agents of the new social paradigm here in this country. The media, just like the body politic, is in the business of selling the very souls of of the people in this nation for lucre.
There are people out here who are rapidly catching on to the media and are voting against them with their remote controllers. They are going elsewhere for their news and information's.
All you have to do is look at the ratings of long held institutions like the Olde Grey Lady and see how they are doing amongst the public.
What people are slowly coming to realize is that the media...the body politic and public education standards are not representative of the beliefs of the American Public. They must constantly skew the numbers to make things appear to be something they are not. This is become clear to many Americans. The media is losing tremendous public face across the board.


The reason there was such mobilization against her is because those kinds of views are not acceptable amongst the bulk of society (I like to think anyway) and people were disgusted by her statement.


I disagree...there was disgust in mostly the media sector and this group...and they tagged teamed on her to express this view by default.
Even liberal California...is not going along with this when it was attempted to be put on the voting ballot. What are you thinking here??
Most of America does not agree with it.

As I said...the media, and body politic along with this group do not obviously represent most of America. Only in the news media and body politic. Americans are learning this about public trust and are becoming disgusted with such politics..and the media shilling for them.


If her right to speak her opinion wasn't taken away, which by the way you talk it wasn't, then her rights to free speech were not violated.


She was censored...reprimanded...disciplined for speaking her views. this is not free speech. She was tag teamed by a system in play. A religion..a devout, zealous religion. Call it what you want or doctor it up how you want. This was attempted to be a lesson to her and the rest of America. It will happen again with the same predictability ...mob justice.

I call it a threat to free speech. and the next step is to codify it into law...which is happening in England as we speak. Someone here is attempting to make us just like England, Canada, Australia, and Continental Europe.


As for her not being the one who answered the question, it's totally irrelevant. She was in a public contest and she knew damn well that anything she said could, and would, be open to scrutiny. That was her decision when she opened her mouth.


She was the one who answered the question. I think you are getting the perspective backwards or have a typo here. Perez Hilton asked the question ..not her. She gave her answer..to a question asked and Perez Hilton was way out of line in his reaction to her answer. So too where the media in going after here in the manner they did to excoriate and punish her.


Especially your repeated use of the term "it's obvious to thinking people" because you're clearly trying to put yourself above those who disagree with you.


You are most certainly entitled to this belief. No problem with me here.

However this....


Well guess what, disagreement with your point of view does not an ignorant person make, so maybe you should try getting off your high horse and debating the issue with a little more humility.


I think you mean ignorance like this here by jfj123..


What you're saying is that since you don't agree with them, they shouldn't have a voice. You would have been right at home in nazi germany.


That kind of high horse is what you meant ..was it not??? This kind of humility?? Or this one here...


Might I suggest finding a deep, dark cave and move in then. People are finally becoming enlightened enough to judge people based on who they are on the inside instead of who they are on the outside. This is what is called ENLIGHTENMENT.


What was your point about humilty??? It is getting lost in the drama and lack of humility by others here.
Please clarify this for me and the other readers out here!!


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rick1
 


Ok, you dont have to admit that I knew what "kill" in the Bible meant.

Many of us understand, it isnt that we are ignorant of what is in the Bible, or even of how Christians have been taught to interpret it.

And in answer to your question that is intended to run us off the point, even if my address were publicly available on the internet or anywhere, (which it probably is, somewhere) there would not be crowds of people outside my home harassing me.

This is because of two things. One, I am not a public figure. No one gives a rats ass about me or my opinions. I could rattle on all day long, and no one cares.

Secondly, I dont really get "all up" in other peoples business. I state MY opinion, as MY opinion, and I dont pretend I am the be all and end all authority on what other people should do. Personally, I think many of my opinions are well reasoned, and worthy of consideration, but ultimately I dont think its any of my business what other people do in their private lives. I do believe in a Divine, maybe not the way a typical Christian does, but I have a belief system. I just think that any God worth believing in can handle his business without me butting in. In fact Jesus kind of recommended that approach with all the non-judgment and "speck in the eye" stuff he spent a lot of his time promoting.

So I doubt, even if I were a public figure, that I would raise enough ire to motivate people to spend their precious time outside my home with torches and pitchforks. Most people would rather do other things unless they are really, really hurt and angry.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 



They are not in favor of this kind of free speech. That is obvious to people who can think for themselves.


This is the line I was responding to, a line you typed when responding to my comments which I felt to be unnecessarily condescending. I wasn't referring to comments you made towards jfj123 and I agree that both the Nazi and enlightenment comment were in bad taste and didn't add to the conversation. However I was responding to your statements, not jfj123's so I didn't feel that was relevant. Please don't try and deflect, I didn't defend jfj123, I was speaking strictly about our conversation thus far.

As for the question, it was in fact a typo and for that I apologize. I'm aware that Perez asked it but she didn't have to answer him if she really didn't want to. Though that being said, when you sign on for a beauty competition it has to be expected that you are going to be asked questions and that people will be analyzing your statements, this is just common sense and by agreeing to take part in this competition she knew that her statements could come under scrutiny.

She was reprimanded and opposed for speaking her views, how is that taking away her right to free speech? If she suffered legal consequences as a result of her statements then THAT would be taking away free speech. All I see here is a campaign of opposition from those who disagreed with her statements. Them exercising their right to free speech by disagreeing with her and chastising her for holding such opinions doesn't infringe on her right to free speech. As I said before, if there were personal attacks involved then I don't support that because it doesn't add to meaningful debate but ultimately, a lot of name calling doesn't take away her right to free speech, not in the slightest. That's the price you pay for broadcasting your views, you leave yourself open to scrutiny.

So a large number of people disagreed with her and made their dissatisfaction public. They chastised her because they thought her views were abhorrent and were appalled by what they heard. Ultimately the only thing they did was express their own views using their own right to free speech. If there had been serious legal consequences for her statement then I would agree with you, but the only thing she suffered was social opposition and being chastised. That doesn't violate her right to free speech. By that same token, there was nothing stopping people who supported her views from holding rallies, using the media (don't tell me FOX wouldn't have picked that up in a second) or just generally enacting their own support campaign. Nothing has been violated here. She expressed her opinion, as per her right, and she was actively opposed, as is their right. Nobody lost any rights during this whole thing.

I live in Canada so up here she could've faced some legal ramifications depending on how she phrased it but I don't agree with hate speech laws because I think that it just feeds the haters victim based rhetoric. I'm a stronger supporter of free speech than most and I don't see how anybody's right to free speech was infringed upon here



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
"ALL THINGS BELONG TO GOD". That is why you're not going to be allowed to own a Canadian or a Mexican although you might try to. Slavery is a crime against humanity. It has no legitimacy. It must not be permitted. Obviously the "Book of Leviticus" was written by men, intent apon being that which is pleasing to men. I very much doubt the divine origin of the Bible. But I do not doubt the divine origin of every tree. Trees are holy, but books are not. To plant a tree is an act of great righteousness, where as to cut down a tree is an act of extreme evil. Remember that we are told in the Bible, that in order to build his "Temple of the LORD", King Solomon destroyed the sacred cedar forests of what is now the Lebanon. As a consequence of that act of great sin, Lebanon continues to be a desert region, even to this day. Private property has no validity in the sight of God. Private property is a form of insanity. A grave delusion, because in truth, as a matter of absolute fact, all things belong to God.

This thread gives me the opportunity to teach you about the revelation that I recieved in early 2000 AD. In that audio clairvoyant communion with the angels, I was told to write down precisely verbatim, what they required me to write. They gave to me what is, by their requirement, called PRAECEPTAE CAELENIUM(tm). Which translated means, "The Celestial Precepts" or "The Law of the Angels" or "The Way of Heaven" or translated into Chinese Mandarin it is "CHIENTAO".

"(1) From eternity to eternity, infinity to infinity, there be the one absolute. The One God there be no other God. Her names are many but she be the one true God. The one judge there be no other judge. (2) La deus nostra, notre dame, our lady, The holy spirit, the cause the maker Cosmica. (3) Angelic powers of truth and beauty and righteousness be sure to be loving her above with all your mind and with all your heart and with all your strength. (4) So as to be pleasing to her above therefore do not be serving the masculine. (5) Do not be and do not allow masculinity into positions of government. (6) Honour and respect the virgin pureness of the christae. (7) Honour and respect the Immaculate Conception reproductive process of the christae. (8) Do not fornicate or adulterate or sodomize. (9) Do not bully or torture or murder. (10) Do not lie. (11) Do not steal. (12) Do not be covetous. (13) Do not be jealous". Copyright NGL 2000.

As clarification the word "christae" is an adjective, not a noun, meaning pure or in this case girls being virginity. Obviously the God who communicated this to me is a feminine God equivalent to the Taoist Chinese GUANYIN. Indeed my personal belief is that God is feminine.

He who trusts in violence to be his security cannot speak that he trusts in God to be his security. Obviously the problem of violence is universal. Muslims are not unique in this regard. Everyone of us is every bit as violent. Violence is a primitive chemistry of the oldest part of the brain, the Reptilian Cortex. It is out of control because people are not using their higher brain to control the reptilian predatory urges. We need to find ways by which to get the higher brain to function. Unfortunately abusing drugs and alcohol weaken the ability of the higher brain to control the violent urges of the reptilian cortex. So in my opinion the violence is drugs related. They are fighting over who is to be in control of the Opium Trade. Islam has always been about the Opium Trade. It is very fundamental to their religion. The Prophet Mohammed used it all his life. The Koran does not hide this fact. It gives them the courage to do their acts of violence. They call it "hasheesh" [heroin] which is root of the word "Hashashin" [heroin addict] which becomes the English word "assassin" [murderer]. So you see violence is their religion. Sex and Drugs and Violence are the Trinity of Evil. The three prime attributes of the LORD. "The LORD is a man of war. The LORD is his name" Exodus 15:3. So in my opinion it can be clearly seen that the Islamic religion is coming to us straight out of the Pit of Hell itself. It is the Nightmare of Hell and the Anti-Christ Apostasy foretold and prophesied in the Bible scriptures. It is the Armageddon predicted in the Book of Revelation. It will destroy the world. It is the "Way of Man" and is thus murderously opposed to the "Way of Heaven". Muslims are as they call it in their language, "moohareb" which means "they who make war against God" for they have no faith in God, they only have faith in violence. Remember the words of Jesus, "You shall know a tree by its fruit. For the mouth speaks what the heart is filled with". By the process of Multidimensionality Physics, I teach that, Peace is a gift of God to whom so ever She please to give it, or not as the case may be. I advise that you try to read a book called THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE by author MICHAEL TALBOT published in 1991 by Harper Collins. ISBN 0-586-09171-8. It will help you to understand how everything is in the Hand of God.
[url=http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/shimono/id309926637]>SHIMONO



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I am of the opinion that the OP has been watching to many west wing reruns. The simple facts are rather undeniable. homsexuality is abnormal to the species at large. many religions condemn the act. homosexuals represent less than .001% of the population. Muslim nations treat them far more harshly than we ever thought of.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phedreus
 


And why is abnormality a problem? What two consenting adults do behind closed doors doesn't affect the rest of the population in any way. Many religions have condemned homosexuality? Many religions have also condemned the eating of certain foods, pork being condemned in two major world religions (Judaism and Islam) what's your point? Abnormality in the species and condemnation by religions means nothing regarding whether or not it's ok to be gay or not. Unless that's not what you're saying. Your post is kind of vague so I'm curious to understand what you meant



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


the leviticus laws are outdated.

the bible says so.

GOD says so.

this is the reason why we should rejoice in christ, because now there is a new covenant.


don't take my word for it, here is the scripture

HEBREWS 7

excerpts are as follows


11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.


the 'another priest' in verse 11 refers to Christ.
verse 12 clearly states a need for a change in the law.


moving onwards,


18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

..

22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office;
24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.




hebrews 8 takes this point even further, by stating


7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:

"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt, (leviticus laws)
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.


10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.



--
don't be drawn back by wicked and their logic,
perhaps if the writer of the e-mail had read his scripture, he may have discovered the good news earlier

and be happy, because now we don't have to grow out our sideburns : )



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   


Sexuality is never made public display in the manner in which this group tries to force acceptance on an unwilling public.
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Really? I must not be seeing the same things you are because every day I see people displaying their sexuality. Walk into a park, see a couple kissing? walk down the street, see that Husband and Wife holding hands...

As to that "unwilling public", well that doesn't hold any water because at one time that "unwilling public" didn't want women to vote or lets Blacks sit in the front of the bus.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Helmkat]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by grahag
 

When people assassinate the character of someone simply because they disagree with them that is not free speech. When large groups of people people go to someones home and taught them day and night that is not free speech. Free speech does have limits. I know you don't understand this because your post just proved it.


Our disagreement seems to stem from you thinking that her right of free speech is being suppressed, when in fact, it's just more organized than hers is. How does them expressing their opinions prevent her from expressing hers? The audience isn't the key, it's the ability to express your opinion that you have the right to.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Not sure if anyone has noticed (probably not) but this "letter" is actually mostly ripped off of a "West Wing" episode (Season 2, titled: "In this White House"

It is not an original piece of work.

9 pages of comments and not one sophisticate picked up on this?

Brutal, fellas.





new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join