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.

 

Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

page: 39
55
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


Yeah like eating pork... and working on the sabbath.

Religious people are so dense. Although i respect how much work it takes to stay that stupid.


LOL


Yeah - - I don't get it. Especially now with the internet making research so much easier.

How can any intelligent person still be stuck in the dogma of religious based books. I'm sure there is factual information in ancient scripts - - - but without in-depth study of the culture - - - and even with - - its often still a guess what the meanings are.

Yet people believe books put together by man through many processes.


I use Johnny Appleseed as an example. Most people know the myth of Johnny Appleseed. But they don't know he was a real person and his life is accurately documented.

Comparing his myth to his real life - - - gives an example how fact becomes myth. www.straightdope.com...




posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
“Once you start breaking the laws, what does it matter anymore which law you break?”
Agoyahtah
WOW! So you agree with mr3dboot that adults having sex with children is ethically equivalent to two adults having sex! So, according to your statement, if I get a speeding ticket, what does it matter if I then murder someone! WOW! Or perhaps, you haven’t thought the issue thru?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by wittgenstein
 


Whoops, I just provided alcohol to a minor, might as well commit genocide!



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by wittgenstein
It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!



Once you start breaking the laws, what does it matter anymore which law you break?
edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)


Laws are there to protect the victims. Victims of rape, crime, hate, incest, pedophilia, etc. Two consenting adults that engage in a loving, committed relationship involves no victims and hurts no one.
edit on 10-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


Who is the victim of the necrophiliac?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by wittgenstein
It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!



Once you start breaking the laws, what does it matter anymore which law you break?
edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)


Laws are there to protect the victims. Victims of rape, crime, hate, incest, pedophilia, etc. Two consenting adults that engage in a loving, committed relationship involves no victims and hurts no one.
edit on 10-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


Who is the victim of the necrophiliac?


The corpse is the victim, of course. No one can claim that the corpse is a consenting partner, therefore it is taking advantage of a non-consenting victim.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Are blowup dolls victims too?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Are blowup dolls victims too?


A non-human sex toy is not a victim. Nice try at humor, though.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

The corpse is the victim, of course. No one can claim that the corpse is a consenting partner, therefore it is taking advantage of a non-consenting victim.


But, the corpse has no life in it. The life that was there left long ago. It's just an aggregate of dust now. No different than a blow up doll.

edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Yet people believe books put together by man through many processes.




The mystery is why do people believe anything at all.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


well thank you for a response but you did get one thing wrong there were quite a number of what we would call homosexuals then, of course many were married to women so they would have children.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
The mystery is why do people believe anything at all.



Let me guess your answer is Jesus?

The corpse is the victim vicariously through everyone that loved the deceased person. That's the way I would see it.

But anyways this is an absurd analogy on your part because there is no way if someone did this to the corpse of someone you had loved you'd rally behind the necrophiliacs right. Why? Same reason as everyone else, there is no convincing argument to support it! There very much IS for LGBT.

If you want to bring up these absurd analogies then try and present a sound argument for its support.

Blind people getting drivers licenses would result in the death of the driver and people on the road. Absurd analogy. There is no supporting argument.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by Annee

Yet people believe books put together by man through many processes.




The mystery is why do people believe anything at all.



Well - - - we are of the unknown. My thought is: anything/everything is possible.

Science is based on what is known - - not what is unknown.

I can understand personal Spirituality - - that doesn't infringe on others.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


That is what I was trying to say. According to science, a corpse is an inanimate object, no different than a blowup doll. The dead don't care anymore than a fleshlight does.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by Believer101
Even if I don't have sex with someone of the same sex, that does not mean I'm not bisexual. While sex is a part of everyone's lives and does happen with attraction, that has nothing to do with being homosexual. You can still be gay and be attracted to the same sex without having sex with them. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Please try again.


Love between two people of the same sex is fine, as long as no sex is involved. The bible is full of examples of men loving each other, for example. It's the modern confusion between "love" and "lust" that makes it difficult to clarify what exactly you're talking about when you use the word :"love". Like I mentioned many times before, the gay movement has an agenda to change the meanings of the words in the language, so that people become confused. Just think of the word "gay" itself. It used to mean a "happy" state of mind, no sex involved. Today, you can't use the word "gay" without confusion.


It's a natural phenomena of language to change over time, a good example of this are the works of Shakespeare. The confusion between love and lust is as old as time and it cares not what your sexual orientation may be. People lust after many things and call it love, even in religion.
There is no gay agenda to change the meaning of words, just like I have yet to see a group of gays storm a church and force people to be pro-gay. I would be just as appalled as you if that did happen. You can't expect your rights to stand and be shown respect yet deny that to others, that's hypocrasy.

Most of us here are well aware of the stance of the Bible (although there are some interesting Jewish debates on those particular parts of Torah) on what is proper and what is not and while this is fitting for someone who lives by the Bible, not everyone wants to live by the Bible nor people's various understandings of it.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

If you want to bring up these absurd analogies then try and present a sound argument for its support.


Well, but that's the point I'm trying to get through to you. The idea that some things are "absurd" is really just one persons opinion, isn't it? If we are not going to refer to the scripture to guide us, then every one is free to draw the line where ever they wish. Homosexuality is "absurd" to me, and to many people I know. However, it appears that it is not "absurd" to some other folks around here. Yet, those to whom homosexuality is not apparently absurd, still have their own ideas about what is "absurd". They too discriminate, they too act like bigots, they too believe that they can tell right from wrong. Except, they have no book, like the bible to guide them, their ideas come from their own desires. They are guided by their own lusts. Their philosophy about what is right and what is wrong is "constructed" by them, to appease and satisfy their own lustful nature. There is no higher principle involved. There's no acceptance of wisdom from ancient sages. There is no higher authority than themselves.

Why would you deny the necrophiliac his pleasure, but demand the right to indulge your own?

This is what is "absurd" to me.



edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Well, but that's the point I'm trying to get through to you. The idea that some things are "absurd" is really just one persons opinion, isn't it?


Indeed. Or a collective of individual opinions. So present a supporting argument for necrophilia, pedophilia, and blind people getting drivers licenses. If they are sound arguments they might just leave the realm of absurdity.


If we are not going to refer to the scripture to guide us, then every one is free to draw the line where ever they wish.

Another way of saying you can't be moral without Christianity. Demonstrably false.


They too discriminate

Oh personally? I don't take issue with discriminating and judgmental thoughts in of itself. I do it all the time. Done it in this thread. Doing it to you.

I take issue with Christians pretending they are not doing it themselves by hiding behind Biblical language. "I hate the sin not the sinner" "I am not judging you God is" "I love you, but you don't know what love is" etc etc ect.

Discrimination and judgement isn't the issue in of itself. It's the specific application of it that can become an issue.


Why would you deny the necrophiliac his pleasure, but demand the right to indulge your own?


1. It isn't just about pleasure of the flesh. It's about two living human beings free to enjoy life in our society as equally as you. It's about love, companionship, and everything else you would attribute to heterosexual relationships/marriages. For you to say it's just about 'pleasure of the flesh' you have to literally make the claim that LGBT are incapable of love, intimacy, friendship between same-sex...

2. I say it yet again. Present a strong argument FOR supporting the rights of necrophilia. Until you do that this isn't analogous. It's simply your way of saying we are disgusting like necrophiliacs. You realize that's perfectly clear to us right?
edit on 10-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


That is what I was trying to say. According to science, a corpse is an inanimate object, no different than a blowup doll. The dead don't care anymore than a fleshlight does.


The blow-up doll was never human. The corpse was once a living human, and therefore deserves some respect after death.

It is a really silly argument to compare two living people making a conscious choice to be together, and a person defiling a corpse. Seriously. Consenting adults, guys. Consenting adults - makes all the difference here.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

It is a really silly argument to compare two living people making a conscious choice to be together, and a person defiling a corpse. Seriously. Consenting adults, guys. Consenting adults - makes all the difference here.


Honestly there are times when I have nothing to say


Waiting for the off topic "cops" to arrive.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kaylaluv

It is a really silly argument to compare two living people making a conscious choice to be together, and a person defiling a corpse. Seriously. Consenting adults, guys. Consenting adults - makes all the difference here.


Honestly there are times when I have nothing to say


Waiting for the off topic "cops" to arrive.


I know, right? I don't know why I waste my time with it.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Indeed. Or a collective of individual opinions. So present a supporting argument for necrophilia, pedophilia, and blind people getting drivers licenses. If they are sound arguments they might just leave the realm of absurdity.


There's no supporting arguments for necrophilia. The only sexuality that has any justifiable basis is heterosexuality. It is clear that the primary function there is to procreate. The fact that some straight people have sex without any intent to procreate isn't the issue. It's one of design, not decision.

In the case of homosexuality, it's all about decision. There's no design plan supporting that sexuality. It's just that it is "possible" to physically do things in a way that design didn't intend.

But, humans are creative, and they can explore other ways, they are not limited like the animals. Man can fly, although he wasn't designed to fly. So humans are special, in that they can circumvent the design plans if they so choose ! But, it's all about decision.

Once we realize this, each person's freedom of choice gives him the ability to deviate from the design plan in the way he elects to choose. One person discovers that a man can fit with a sheep, quite nicely, so loves the sheep. Another explores a dog, a hen, a cow, all lusting after the "contact" of "flesh to flesh". But some discover that a man is most like a woman, when viewed from behind. In fact, it's easy to get confused, so the next best thing to a woman for him, is another man. Where women are scarce, like in the prisons, the substitute becomes the only way to get relief. It's not that the prisoners prefer the touch of another man, it's just that they have no woman available there. As soon as they get out of prison, they visit the first woman that will have them.

So, we see men making "choices" based on their environment. It's all decision. Each justifies it in his own way. Necrophilia has no more nor less justifiable basis than homosexuality. They are both simple choices. Decisions made by individuals with free will.



Another way of saying you can't be moral without Christianity. Demonstrably false.


Where do the morals come from? Are there some scientific experiments that we can perform to demonstrate these morals?

If not, either we accept them from some scriptures, or we just "make them up'.





Oh personally? I don't take issue with discriminating and judgmental thoughts in of itself. I do it all the time. Done it in this thread. Doing it to you.


Good. So you are not opposed to discriminating against those whom you see are doing things you think are wrong. Therefore you can understand why people discriminate against homosexuality.



I take issue with Christians pretending they are not doing it themselves by hiding behind Biblical language. "I hate the sin not the sinner" "I am not judging you God is" "I love you, but you don't know what love is" etc etc ect.


Christians are not just hiding behind biblical language. They have biological evidence that the design plan is in agreement with the scriptures also. So, theirs is a very firm foundation of understanding of principles.



Discrimination and judgement isn't the issue in of itself. It's the specific application of it that can become an issue.


The specific application is to support the things you believe are right, and remove support from the things you believe are wrong. This is natural.




1. It isn't just about pleasure of the flesh. It's about two living human beings free to enjoy life in our society as equally as you.


You are actually free already. The only problem comes in when gays want other people to accept them, they want other people "to give them" things to be happy, and "to support" their lifestyle choices.

As long as the gay couple doesn't "call on others" to provide them with supporting things, they can actually live life free and happy. In fact, within the gay community, of like minded folk, I'm sure many gay couples are already happy, or at least, they imagine they are happy. Which is as close as anybody gets.

Stepping out of that environment, and into the straight couples world, and demanding straight peoples treat them as any other straight couple, is where the problems arise. Because, now, they have to require that straight people "suspend their discrimination", to accept and support things they believe are wrong, and not to discriminate, when the gays themselves continue to discriminate in their own way in situations the gay person views as wrong.

If the gay person will not accept the necrophiliac, why should the straight person accept the homosexual? Why should only the straight person be required to suspend his power to discriminate?




edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
55
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join