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.

 

Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

page: 37
30
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bitsforbytes
 

That's very admirable of you to look into it and acknowledge that. I'm not used to that from people that suggest it's so low. Thank you. Paint me impressed.

That said, my understanding is it's a bit lower
I tend to favor the 10%, but that isn't popular on ATS. Then again, I am accounting for bisexuality, to which I am biased. Still, I am not entirely sure all these figures take it into account.

But yeah… really any percent… represents millions of people. Thats rather important since it's peoples lives we are talking about.




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


In the meantime, the popularity of Scofield's version is not in question by those who "have a need to know" as is clear from one of the links you "searched"

Wait so someones personal website that says it has "unprecedented circulation" without any links to sources to back the claim is evidence it's true? I am a web developer. Tonight I could create a site, host it, and on it state the Scofield version is the least popular version ever. It would have just as much empirical weight as that site.


Absolutely there are many millions of people with good morals and values

Good. I am happy you are taking back your earlier words. This is a much more truthful position.


I have known a lot of very good people who consider themselves staunch Christians simply because they believe in what they learned in Sunday school

Me too


As for what you said about interracial couples, and interracial marriage, and the founding fathers… not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me. My contention again is that they would no doubt support it if they lived now. I mean, it's the Constitution they created that the Supreme Court is now using to determine it's unconstitutional after all. It's all happened before. These social movements, it all starts the same. Whether it's women's rights or black rights or otherwise. They are violently opposed, then they are grudgingly accepted, then they are self-evident. It goes from 'that's so wrong' to 'oh duh that was always okay'. Truly that's been the case and there is no reason to think the LGBT movement will be any different.


And with that, I will bid you adieu.

Okay. Farewell.
edit on 20-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle
 


In the meantime, the popularity of Scofield's version is not in question by those who "have a need to know" as is clear from one of the links you "searched"

Wait so someones personal website that says it has "unprecedented circulation" without any links to sources to back the claim is evidence it's true? I am a web developer. Tonight I could create a site, host it, and on it state the Scofield version is the least popular version ever. It would have just as much empirical weight as that site.


Absolutely there are many millions of people with good morals and values

Good. I am happy you are taking back your earlier words. This is a much more truthful position.


I have known a lot of very good people who consider themselves staunch Christians simply because they believe in what they learned in Sunday school

Me too


As for what you said about interracial couples, and interracial marriage, and the founding fathers… not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me. My contention again is that they would no doubt support it if they lived now. I mean, it's the Constitution they created that the Supreme Court is now using to determine it's unconstitutional after all. It's all happened before. These social movements, it all starts the same. Whether it's women's rights or black rights or otherwise. They are violently opposed, then they are grudgingly accepted, then they are self-evident. It goes from 'that's so wrong' to 'oh duh that was always okay'. Truly that's been the case and there is no reason to think the LGBT movement will be any different.


And with that, I will bid you adieu.

Okay. Farewell.
edit on 20-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


It really annoys me when someone takes my words out of context to twist the meanings to suit their purposes. I am taking nothing back. By saying there are no morals left I was NOT referring to PEOPLE, but to the machine that rules over the people. Government and corporations are amoral, they care nothing for the health and welfare of people they rule over. Never have, never will.

So first you said "you couldn't find it", and now that I've laid it right before your eyes, it must be a lie. If people don't at least attempt to separate the truth from fiction they will be living lies and those are the ones that can be fooled all of the time.

Beef eaters might be ingesting monkey brains in their fast food burgers and in the packages "marked" beef they buy off the store shelves. They may THINK they're eating beef, but they're not. Vegetable eaters have no idea whatsoever of what all has been altered in their corn chowder. Same holds true with our brains. Change a molecule here or there, change a word here or there. Garbage in, garbage out.

As I've asked multiple times, find a clause in the constitution that gives ANY branch of the federal government the authority to legislate over the interpersonal relations of citizens. But even failing that, I'm sure you're aware that according to the authors of the law of the land, if you weren't a white male you weren't even fully human and if you weren't a landowner you had no voice. Speaking of pretentious words about equality. But you "believe".





edit on 21-2-2014 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

frazzle
By saying there are no morals left I was NOT referring to PEOPLE, but to the machine that rules over the people. Government and corporations are amoral, they care nothing for the health and welfare of people they rule over. Never have, never will.

That isn't the topic of the thread. The topic is the morals of the people so maybe instead of acting like you agree with the OP and then going off on a tangent you should try to keep things on-topic.


So first you said "you couldn't find it", and now that I've laid it right before your eyes, it must be a lie.

He didn't say it was a lie. He said that it didn't back up your claim. None of the information in those 5 links backs up your claim. Then again maybe you forgot what that claim was.


As I've asked multiple times, find a clause in the constitution that gives ANY branch of the federal government the authority to legislate over the interpersonal relations of citizens. But even failing that, I'm sure you're aware that according to the authors of the law of the land, if you weren't a white male you weren't even fully human and if you weren't a landowner you had no voice. Speaking of pretentious words about equality. But you "believe".

Off on that tangent again.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by bitsforbytes
 

That's very admirable of you to look into it and acknowledge that. I'm not used to that from people that suggest it's so low. Thank you. Paint me impressed.

That said, my understanding is it's a bit lower
I tend to favor the 10%, but that isn't popular on ATS. Then again, I am accounting for bisexuality, to which I am biased. Still, I am not entirely sure all these figures take it into account.

But yeah… really any percent… represents millions of people. Thats rather important since it's peoples lives we are talking about.


I think the misunderstandings arise, so to speak, from equating "sexual identity" or "sexual preference" with "sexual attraction to someone of the same gender" or "sexual activity with someone of the same gender."

Many will heartily disclaim that they are gay/lesbian/bisexual. Many will admit, given the right context, that they "have been in the past or are now sexually attracted on occasion to their own gender.

For example, statistically speaking, there are not enough gay men in this world to sustain all the gay male porn sites.

(I've seen studies that suggest that "same sex attraction" might be as common as 28% in the population at large.

I look forward to a day, personally, when our "adolescent obsessions" with sexuality are left culturally and completely behind.

Your mileage may vary.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
frazzle


As I've asked multiple times, find a clause in the constitution that gives ANY branch of the federal government the authority to legislate over the interpersonal relations of citizens.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution is pretty straight forward about individual i.e. personal and therefore inter-personal rights and takes steps to defend those rights for all concerned.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


It really annoys me when someone takes my words out of context to twist the meanings to suit their purposes. I am taking nothing back. By saying there are no morals left I was NOT referring to PEOPLE but to the machine that rules over the people.

This is your quote:


Media, education and religion have worked in tandem to morph the morals and values of this country until there aren't any left.

This read to me as people in this country no longer have morals and values.

Instead of getting annoyed with me for misunderstanding your intention perhaps you could have been more clear. Here I will help with that..

The machine that rules over people is void of morals and values. That is apparently what you meant and is completely different in meaning.


So first you said "you couldn't find it", and now that I've laid it right before your eyes, it must be a lie.

I searched your 5 links and all I came up with was one instance on a personal website agreeing with your claim without any source to substantiate it. Let me demonstrate why that doesn't work.

Check out this website:

aboveusonlylies.com...
edit on 21-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Gryphon66
frazzle


As I've asked multiple times, find a clause in the constitution that gives ANY branch of the federal government the authority to legislate over the interpersonal relations of citizens.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution is pretty straight forward about individual i.e. personal and therefore inter-personal rights and takes steps to defend those rights for all concerned.


Nothing in there mentions personal relationships, marriage or families.

When it was written ...

The right to Life ~ not if you were an Indian
The right to Liberty ~ not if you were a black (or white) slave
The right to Property ~ you'll notice how that one was changed to "the pursuit of happiness" PDQ. After all, if property was a right, people might start demanding that the government give them a piece of property as opposed to that "right" only being available to people with enough money to buy it. How discriminatory, how unequal. Not to mention all the property that was confiscated from British loyalists. And how would government justify collecting property tax if ownership was a right? That also, is a privilege. Follow the rules or you'll lose the privilege.

The powers of congress are limited. Article 1, section 8 describes the specific law making authority available to them under the constitution.
law2.umkc.edu...

All else was left to the states.

The 14th amendment has been challenged repeatedly as never having been properly ratified by the states, and only "deemed" ratified. But as much as you'll hear the "equal protection" clause touted, it was the clause that made Americans "subject to the jurisdiction of" the federal government, as was originally prohibited BY the constitution, that overthrew the government's limitations to impede the rights of the states.

Nevertheless, there is yet no legislative method available to congress for passing marriage law or family law of any kind. Even the ACA had to be classed as a tax and it still barely passed muster with the Supremes. But yes, they could add another group as having a "privilege" via marriage licensing laws , but they're contract laws, not legislated laws. They write the contracts, you sign them and they can revise or even revoke them at any time without your consent.

Some people revere church teachings, often without reading between the lines, but they aren't the only ones.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle
 


It really annoys me when someone takes my words out of context to twist the meanings to suit their purposes. I am taking nothing back. By saying there are no morals left I was NOT referring to PEOPLE but to the machine that rules over the people.

This is your quote:


Media, education and religion have worked in tandem to morph the morals and values of this country until there aren't any left.

This read to me as people in this country no longer have morals and values.

Instead of getting annoyed with me for misunderstanding your intention perhaps you could have been more clear. Here I will help with that..

The machine that rules over people is void of morals and values. That is apparently what you meant and is completely different in meaning.


So first you said "you couldn't find it", and now that I've laid it right before your eyes, it must be a lie.

I searched your 5 links and all I came up with was one instance on a personal website agreeing with your claim without any source to substantiate it. Let me demonstrate why that doesn't work.

Check out this website:

aboveusonlylies.com...
edit on 21-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Tell me about the morality in this:


Feeding The Homeless BANNED In Major Cities All Over America
Sadly, feeding the homeless has been banned in major cities all over America. Other cities that have not banned it outright have put so many requirements on those that want to feed the homeless (acquiring expensive permits, taking food preparation courses, etc.) that feeding the homeless has become "out of reach" for most average people. theeconomiccollapseblog.com...


Or this:

How Are American Cities Caring for the Homeless? By Giving Them One-Way Tickets Out of Town breakingbrown.com...


The people behind these bans and evictions are every bit as American as you or I. The cogs that make the machine operate ARE Americans, even if they don't realize they're cogs.

What you asked for were some sources on the heavy usage of the Scofield Bible. I gave it to you both by link and then pasting the information from legitimate sources. All you saw was something you could use to deny and deflect. Obviously I wouldn't have his prison record in my hot little hand. But like I said, its no biggie. Its there if someone wants to check it out.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


(I've seen studies that suggest that "same sex attraction" might be as common as 28% in the population at large.

I look forward to a day, personally, when our "adolescent obsessions" with sexuality are left culturally and completely behind.

Your mileage may vary.

I think there could be weight to the Kinsey Scale. The idea that many people fall on a spectrum between exclusively heterosexual and homosexual. At least that's what I think it means. I dunno.

Yeah I definitely agree with your sentiments. I also look forward to when people stop caring whether it's a choice or not. I mean I don't believe it is, but I don't understand why that would matter. I think that aspect arises in discussion because religious people don't want to think god created gay people that way since their religion discriminates against them. Cognitive Dissonance ensued and bam this focus on it being a choice.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Fortunately, outside of a few fringe believers in Randian libertarian nirvana, no one questions the protections afforded to individuals in the Bill of Rights, no one questions the value of the protections offered to all Americans in the Fourteenth, and for those who claim to "love" the Constitution so much, want to constrain it to some pitiful remnant of their own interpretation, each one a greater legal scholar than all the Justices of the Supreme Court for the last 200 or so years, less than the Articles of Confederation.

A "loose" alliance of States didn't work then and it sure as heck wouldn't work now. The Framers knew that. There was never any question that there was and would be a need for a strong central national government if the United States was to have a place on the world stage. Read the ACTUAL words of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln ... instead of whatever "authority" spews their own dogma and calls it Ameircan.

There is nothing about any of our lives today that would exist as we know it if the "United States" had remained as some mere alliance or association or club of small independent satrapies. That is the utter hypocrisy in all the rhetoric about States Rights, no Fourteenth Amendment, take us back to 1787 with a few colonies on the eastern seaboard, there would never have been an America, and garbage "truths" like spit in the faces of every soldier that ever died on battlefield in the belief and hope that ultimate sacrifice would in SOME way keep the Union whole.

edit on 22Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:23:27 -060014p102014266 by Gryphon66 because: just cause



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Once these kinds of questions are dragged kicking and screaming into the sunlight, there is simply no way thereafter that reasonable fair-minded people can continue to pretend that some folks are better than others.

It happened with the African Americans, it happened with Women, it happened with Ethnic Minorities, it happened with those of differing Religions and it will happen with those of differing Sexualities.

There's no way you can argue against marriage equality unless you are blatantly content to make gays and lesbians and bisexuals second-class citizens. It's easy to see, especially here at ATS, what is really roiling just under that surface ... the sincere hatred for people who are not just "different" but disgusting, degraded, perverted, etc. etc., "why are they shoving it down MY throat" or "why do I have to accept them? why can't they accept me and my hatred?"

I suppose we should be thankful for that honesty though.

Maybe if enough of that poison is released, our Body Politic can begin to heal.


edit on 22Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:23:57 -060014p102014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


(I've seen studies that suggest that "same sex attraction" might be as common as 28% in the population at large.

I look forward to a day, personally, when our "adolescent obsessions" with sexuality are left culturally and completely behind.

Your mileage may vary.

I think there could be weight to the Kinsey Scale. The idea that many people fall on a spectrum between exclusively heterosexual and homosexual. At least that's what I think it means. I dunno.

Yeah I definitely agree with your sentiments. I also look forward to when people stop caring whether it's a choice or not. I mean I don't believe it is, but I don't understand why that would matter. I think that aspect arises in discussion because religious people don't want to think god created gay people that way since their religion discriminates against them. Cognitive Dissonance ensued and bam this focus on it being a choice.


God, or whomever/whatever it was that created earth and life on earth, made the insects ~ some beneficial, some benign and some poisonous. The same entity created the animals ~ some beneficial, some benign and some of them deadly. The same holds true for humans. "It" also created noxious deadly weeds while others are nutritious for insects, animals and/or humans. "It" created a variety of diseases, few of which are beneficial to any of the above. The natural world.

Only mankind studies and experiments with disease and abnormalities, like the infamous syphilis experiments on black men that went on from the 1930s all the way through the 70s. www.infoplease.com...

These men weren't promiscuous, they did nothing wrong. They contracted a sexually transmitted disease by scientific proxy. Human lab rats with no rights or protections under the law. President Clinton "apologized" to them in the late 90s. Big whoop, most of them were already well over the suffering stages of their gifted disease. Dead, in other words.

The obsession with sexually transmitted disease as well as brain, hormonal and genetic imbalances / aberrations by the science community is, I believe, mainly responsible for the rampant increase in homosexuality as well as the spread of myriad diseases that follow. Hardly anyone argues that homosexuality wasn't already in existence, otherwise it wouldn't have become the focus of so many "studies" and "experiments" by mad scientists who respect NO one's equal protections under the law, or their right to life.

At the same time science was busily tampering with insect, animal and human genomes, there was a cultural drive in popular entertainment media to delegitimize that part of society that found promiscuity abhorrent in all of its forms, which attitude has also always existed throughout human history, with or without religion and with or without test tubes. So you probably shouldn't count on "that kind of people" just going away any time soon.

But I think if this ~ whatever you want to call it ~ was ever exposed as the result of scientific tampering with people's lives, others might find some sympathy and understanding for those who are impacted by it if they weren't so strident and brazen and militant about it, like the child demanding cookies.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I need clarification here. Are you suggesting homosexuality is the result of scientific experimentation?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle
 


I need clarification here. Are you suggesting homosexuality is the result of scientific experimentation?


No, and I made that clear enough. Just the suggestion it could account for the rampant increase in recent decades. God knows they would never allow such knowledge to escape into the wild, any more than they would have publicized their syphilis experimentation.

Are you suggesting that is an impossibility?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 

Homosexuality was alive and well long before scientists could tinker in that manner. Both in humans and other mammals. So there is that.

As for it being possible. Yeah I suppose…sure…since it seems likely to have a biological basis.

I wouldn't say impossible but I would say highly improbable. For one are they abducting millions of people and then altering them? What's the logistics?

The 'rampant increase' of homosexuality is paralleled with a decrease in discrimination. That's not a coincidence. It's not at all easy for many gay people to 'come out' but it sure is more doable now than it has been here in the States prior. The OPs golden 50s would have a tremendously difficult environment to be open about being gay. They were there, people just didn't know it.
edit on 22-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle
 

Homosexuality was alive and well long before scientists could tinker in that manner. Both in humans and other mammals. So there is that.

As for it being possible. Yeah I suppose…sure…since it seems likely to have a biological basis.

I wouldn't say impossible but I would say highly improbable. For one are they abducting millions of people and then altering them? What's the logistics?

The 'rampant increase' of homosexuality is paralleled with a decrease in discrimination. That's not a coincidence. It's not at all easy for many gay people to 'come out' but it sure is more doable now than it has been here in the States prior. The OPs golden 50s would have a tremendously difficult environment to be open about being gay. They were there, people just didn't know it.
edit on 22-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


As I have said repeatedly, yes, homosexuality existed throughout history although I don't know that lower same sexed animals actually copulate, there are definitely demonstrations of alpha tendencies that could be misconstrued or overblown.

But remember, science is always about 1400 leaps in front of the general public, whether militarily or medically. Why would they have to abduct millions of people? Think chemical sex reassignment. Babies are inoculated at birth and who knows what's in those syringes? Certainly not the babies and certainly not the parents, probably not even the doctors and nurses who administer the "required" shots. What's the logistics on the possibility of some contaminated vials? Not to mention no one had to abduct any black people to infect them with syphilis and that was in the 1930s. All they had to do was lie. We don't know what's in our food, or our water or any of the pills they tell us to swallow. Now THAT is faith.

The parallel you refer to accompanied changes in the education system, media and popular entertainment. And I'm pretty sure it even accompanied some changes in the attitudes and teachings of preachers and priests.

The very difficulty you describe in coming out is what makes the whole thing such a tragedy.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
evangelical and militant atheists pray for the abolution
of religion but they will have to TRY to keep the time
tested morals and values. (be good for goodness sake),
however that will be impossible to do due to moral relativity.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Setting all the paranoias of possibility aside for a moment ... what difference does it make as to what "creates" homosexuality?

A certain percentage of American citizens are homosexual. It doesn't matter how they got that way the same way the particulars of why someone might be blue-eyed would not matter, or to be of Portuguese descent, or to be of the Bahai faith.

The blue-eyed, partially Portuguese Bahai lesbian is still, and above all for this concern, an American citizen.

That's all we need to know to insure equal protection and due process under the laws.
edit on 11Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:35:46 -060014p112014266 by Gryphon66 because: Just cause



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

spirited75
evangelical and militant atheists pray for the abolution
of religion but they will have to TRY to keep the time
tested morals and values. (be good for goodness sake),
however that will be impossible to do due to moral relativity.


There are no evangelical atheists.

Atheists don't typically pray.

Some atheists know the word "abolishment."

Atheists have morals and values as well as or above that of theists.

Not all atheists subscribe to moral relativity. Some believe in moral quantum theory.

Next?

edit on 11Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:34:47 -060014p112014266 by Gryphon66 because: Just cause.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join