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.
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?--A Religious Letter
page: 8share:
Originally posted by ReginaAdonnaAaron
If this person had any inkling of who it is that he is mocking and any understanding of the seriousness in which it is taken, I am certain he would not have done so. I don't feel that letter was funny at all. It came from someone who does not know or understand our Creator, Yahweh, and who in turn wrote a letter that sought to ridicule His Word and make a mockery of His commands. However, it also serves as yet another sign of the times we live in and was prophesied that we would witness in the End Times.
Psalm 35:16 With godless mockery they gnashed their teeth at me.
Psalm 74:10 God, how long will the foe mock? Will the enemy insult Your name forever?
Psalm 74:18 Remember this: the enemy has mocked the LORD, and a foolish people has insulted Your name.
Proverbs 1:22 "How long, foolish ones, will you love ignorance? [How long] will [you] mockers enjoy mocking and [you] fools hate knowledge?
To me, this is a mockery of those who use certain scripture to prove and support their bigotry. This is not a mockery of God's word.
Originally posted by ReginaAdonnaAaron
If this person had any inkling of who it is that he is mocking and any understanding of the seriousness in which it is taken, I am certain he would not have done so. I don't feel that letter was funny at all. It came from someone who does not know or understand our Creator, Yahweh, and who in turn wrote a letter that sought to ridicule His Word and make a mockery of His commands. However, it also serves as yet another sign of the times we live in and was prophesied that we would witness in the End Times.
Psalm 35:16 With godless mockery they gnashed their teeth at me.
Psalm 74:10 God, how long will the foe mock? Will the enemy insult Your name forever?
Psalm 74:18 Remember this: the enemy has mocked the LORD, and a foolish people has insulted Your name.
Proverbs 1:22 "How long, foolish ones, will you love ignorance? [How long] will [you] mockers enjoy mocking and [you] fools hate knowledge?
To me, this is a mockery of those who use certain scripture to prove and support their bigotry. This is not a mockery of God's word.
[edit on 1-6-2010 by aero56]
You know...this is probably one of thousands of similar stupid questions by people who do not understand the Bible nor how to apply its words.
And once again, any and ALL questions posed here can easily be answered by CONTINUE reading the Bible and comparing scripture with scripture.
And yes, queers are still an abomination in the eyes of God as found in Romans chapter 1 and various other New testament verses.
Not only have they always been an abomination since the beginning of time, before the law, during the law, after the law, but also now in the church age and into the millennium.
Eating/drinking blood is another abomination that has always been forbidden too, but that's another topic.
As for eating shrimp, cutting your hair, working on Saturday ect., all such WORKS no longer apply to us, because Jesus Christ kept the law in full, since no one else could.
Now all you have to do is accept Jesus Christs good works and righteousness as your own and believe on him for your eternal salvation. You have to understand that YOU are a dirty rotten sinner and can never get to heaven on your own though.
Your a sinner, that's in need of a savior. That's why the Lord Jesus Christ came, died, and rose again for you.
John 3:1-36 Rom 3:12, 5:8-9, 6:23, 10:9-13 Look them up in a King James Holy Bible and read them. Be without excuse.
[edit on 1-6-2010 by Dallas1611]
And once again, any and ALL questions posed here can easily be answered by CONTINUE reading the Bible and comparing scripture with scripture.
And yes, queers are still an abomination in the eyes of God as found in Romans chapter 1 and various other New testament verses.
Not only have they always been an abomination since the beginning of time, before the law, during the law, after the law, but also now in the church age and into the millennium.
Eating/drinking blood is another abomination that has always been forbidden too, but that's another topic.
As for eating shrimp, cutting your hair, working on Saturday ect., all such WORKS no longer apply to us, because Jesus Christ kept the law in full, since no one else could.
Now all you have to do is accept Jesus Christs good works and righteousness as your own and believe on him for your eternal salvation. You have to understand that YOU are a dirty rotten sinner and can never get to heaven on your own though.
Your a sinner, that's in need of a savior. That's why the Lord Jesus Christ came, died, and rose again for you.
John 3:1-36 Rom 3:12, 5:8-9, 6:23, 10:9-13 Look them up in a King James Holy Bible and read them. Be without excuse.
[edit on 1-6-2010 by Dallas1611]
Originally posted by orangetom1999
jfj123,
So what you're saying as that the homosexuals are using their FREEDOM OF SPEECH to express their views of laura? Surely you aren't suggesting that there are homosexuals trying to physically hurt her?
Homosexuals are being groomed by government, the media, and public education as a new influential voting block...for votes. Particularly in high electoral vote states. In this manner..combined with other groups who live, breath, and worship at the "victim class" altars..they can become the new combined voting block against the rest of the public interest.
It has already happened to the ignorance of most of the rest of the public.
This group, along with others following the same religion, is trying to hurt Dr Laura for voicing her opinion...using or misusing entitlement belief systems...one of which is what is referred to as the main stream media.
WOW ! you are very paranoid.
If laura has the right to freedom of speech so does everyone else...PERIOD. Doesn't matter if they're black, white, brown or gay.
This became very clear about this homosexual movement and the media/politics when this person asked a question to a beauty contestant and then did not like or approve of her answer. I don't remember the names but it was a couple of years back. This questioner then proceeded to use/misuse the media..to totally roast this contestant and the media and other pro homosexuality groups began to weed through this woman's trash cans for anything they could use or misuse to destroy her.
One instance...there are almost 7 billion (7,000,000,000) people on the planet and you use 1 person as proof that there is a movement?
I thought back then this is what Bill Maher and others think is greatness..entitlement. No thanks...not for me.
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.
I think it is the dregs. This person asked the contestant their opinion..and when they did not approve this movement proceeded by any and every means at their disposal to roast her.
It's called freedom of speech. I'm sure people like yourself defended her while people of an opposing view disagreed with her. The Constitution allows EVERYONE to have FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and not just religious people.
While I am not interested in beauty contests..I thought it totally unwarranted by this group. Nor did I find it the ethical moral high ground. I thought it cheap and very zealous religion/politics of the worst kind.
Entitlement religion/politics.
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 don't approve of anyone ..homo or hetero ...who defines themselves by their sexuality.
We all partially define ourselves based on our sexuality.
I am not arguing here against sexuality.
No you're arguing against sexuality that is different then yours
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.!!
Many people define themselves based on their religion so based on your logic, those individuals are also stupid.
You have to be devoutly zealously stupid to think this is greatness and acceptability...that you can force this on others by default.
Nobody is forcing you to be homosexual.
This also clearly shows how ignorant is the media, body politic, and public education for backing such ignorance.
Oh you mean those people who suggest that we not judge those who have a different lifestyle then ourselves ? Yeah that sounds horrible !
The only possible reason they can be doing this is for the votes it will generate in high electoral vote states where more of these peoples can be found.
How many gay people do you think there are in the US ?
...by guilt. It does not work on me.
But you're trying to do it to others right now !
Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by jfj123
Like I said intimidation isn't a crime according to you. We will have to agree to disagree.
There is a difference between intimidation and freedom of speech.
Depending on the situation, intimidation may be a crime. Again, depends on the situation.
Best creative writing piece I've seen in a while!
Thumbs WAY UP!!!
Thumbs WAY UP!!!
reply to post by Dynamitrios
What is the world coming to, when people can't tell if some folks were actually being sarcastic?
What is the world coming to, when people can't tell if some folks were actually being sarcastic?
reply to post by tothetenthpower
The Old Testament is the Old covenant
The New Testament is the New Covenant.
Romans 10:
[4] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
[5] For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Tithes are no longer required as they are of the Old Testament.
Giving is what we are to do with a glad heart of what we feel is right.
As for the rest of your post It seems that you do not read anything past what you want to use to make as a statement against believing in Jesus.
The Old Testament is the Old covenant
The New Testament is the New Covenant.
Romans 10:
[4] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
[5] For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Tithes are no longer required as they are of the Old Testament.
Giving is what we are to do with a glad heart of what we feel is right.
As for the rest of your post It seems that you do not read anything past what you want to use to make as a statement against believing in Jesus.
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
He himself never claimed to be perfect. When the rich young man (camel through of the eye of a needle quote) addressed him as 'good teacher', Jesus's reply was. "Why do you call me good? No one but God alone is good."
Back on topic---
To all the people posting in this thread and using the Bible as an authoritative moral guide:
You have yet to really answer any of the questions posed in the letter. Whether the New Testament superceded the Old Covenant really isn't relevant to most of the questions---as stated elsewhere in the thread, this letter was directed to a Jew and concerns Jewish beliefs, not Christian. However, if you simply must look at it in the context of your own religion instead of the religion of the one it was directed at, you must still keep these things in mind:
1)Jesus DID say that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
2)Surely even the most fundamentalist Christians must agree that Jesus (not Paul) was the mediator of the New Covenant, so Jesus's teachings must be the final authority.
If one insists at looking at this (extremely funny, I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone, no matter how humorless, could look at this letter and not see it as wonderful sarcasm) letter in a Christian light, then Jesus's teaching answers a few of the questions.
*Working on the Sabbath---Jesus himself worked on the Sabbath, healing. He also advocated pulling your cow out if it fell down into a well on the Sabbath rather than leaving it to die simply to uphold the non-work law. He made it pretty clear that working on the Sabbath was ok if you were doing good. So that rule, it seems, he did say we could bend.
*Having contact with a menstruating woman---one day when he was, as usual, in the middle of a crowd, a woman who had had "an issue of blood for twelve years" touched him and, the evangelists tell us, "he felt the power go out from him". He didn't freak out. Instead he told her her sins were forgiven.
*Clean and unclean---he put a lot of effort into the clean/unclean thing, and in the end boiled it down to "nothing that goes into a man is unclean. It is what comes OUT of him that can make him unclean." Something I think a great many so-called Christians might take to heart.
However, many of the questions posed are not issues that were (to our knowledge) addressed by Jesus. That implies that the Law regarding them still stands, so they must be looked at in the context of the Old Testament, even if you are a Christian...if you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.
That being said, I would really like to see the literalists who are so offended by this letter to answer some of the questions, if they can.
This one, for example:
and this one:
and certainly this one:
But most of all I'd like to know...why CAN'T I own a Canadian?
What I dont understand is that Jesus was supposed to be perfect
He himself never claimed to be perfect. When the rich young man (camel through of the eye of a needle quote) addressed him as 'good teacher', Jesus's reply was. "Why do you call me good? No one but God alone is good."
Back on topic---
To all the people posting in this thread and using the Bible as an authoritative moral guide:
You have yet to really answer any of the questions posed in the letter. Whether the New Testament superceded the Old Covenant really isn't relevant to most of the questions---as stated elsewhere in the thread, this letter was directed to a Jew and concerns Jewish beliefs, not Christian. However, if you simply must look at it in the context of your own religion instead of the religion of the one it was directed at, you must still keep these things in mind:
1)Jesus DID say that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
2)Surely even the most fundamentalist Christians must agree that Jesus (not Paul) was the mediator of the New Covenant, so Jesus's teachings must be the final authority.
If one insists at looking at this (extremely funny, I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone, no matter how humorless, could look at this letter and not see it as wonderful sarcasm) letter in a Christian light, then Jesus's teaching answers a few of the questions.
*Working on the Sabbath---Jesus himself worked on the Sabbath, healing. He also advocated pulling your cow out if it fell down into a well on the Sabbath rather than leaving it to die simply to uphold the non-work law. He made it pretty clear that working on the Sabbath was ok if you were doing good. So that rule, it seems, he did say we could bend.
*Having contact with a menstruating woman---one day when he was, as usual, in the middle of a crowd, a woman who had had "an issue of blood for twelve years" touched him and, the evangelists tell us, "he felt the power go out from him". He didn't freak out. Instead he told her her sins were forgiven.
*Clean and unclean---he put a lot of effort into the clean/unclean thing, and in the end boiled it down to "nothing that goes into a man is unclean. It is what comes OUT of him that can make him unclean." Something I think a great many so-called Christians might take to heart.
However, many of the questions posed are not issues that were (to our knowledge) addressed by Jesus. That implies that the Law regarding them still stands, so they must be looked at in the context of the Old Testament, even if you are a Christian...if you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.
That being said, I would really like to see the literalists who are so offended by this letter to answer some of the questions, if they can.
This one, for example:
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
and this one:
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
and certainly this one:
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
But most of all I'd like to know...why CAN'T I own a Canadian?
reply to post by riiver
Good post. I am aware that Jesus didnt make the claim to be perfect, but Christians do, which is why I phrased it that way.
I was just trying to make the point that one would think Jesus (if everything they believe about him was true) would have given Paul an introduction if he was intended to come in and change up the things Jesus himself was saying.
Which he didnt. He actually warned against those who would come after him trying to change up what he said.
Good post. I am aware that Jesus didnt make the claim to be perfect, but Christians do, which is why I phrased it that way.
I was just trying to make the point that one would think Jesus (if everything they believe about him was true) would have given Paul an introduction if he was intended to come in and change up the things Jesus himself was saying.
Which he didnt. He actually warned against those who would come after him trying to change up what he said.
I think the opening of my post didn't come off quite how I intended it to. I knew what you meant, and I absolutely agree; my quote of you and
rebuttal was directed toward the Pauline posts in the thread and not yours. Sorry I didn't make that clear and my apologies if I offended.
Originally posted by NoJoker13
Best creative writing piece I've seen in a while!
Just to clarify, are you referring to the letter in the OP or the bible?
CT
He himself never claimed to be perfect. When the rich young man (camel through of the eye of a needle quote) addressed him as 'good teacher', Jesus's reply was. "Why do you call me good? No one but God alone is good."
So why do most Christians claim that Jesus/God/Holy Spirit are all the same god? Kind of proves that the theory of a holy trinity is another idea promoted by people who cherry pick verses of the bible to perpetuate what they already believe.
EDIT: Changed "all Christians" to "most Christians".
[edit on 2-6-2010 by blowuptheoutsideworld]
reply to post by jfj123
LOL LOL LOL...this is very funny. I was not arguing this point that others do not have freedom of speech. I don't know where you get this idea??
My point and argument is how the government, media, and also this particular group misuse and deceive others about their intent...particularly in making their methods and goals transparent in the handling of this contestant in the beauty pageant.
Oh..and yes this was indeed one instance. You are correct about this..quite correct. What you ignore in drama techniques to make your point is that a whole portion of the nation ...., the media who shill for them, and this movement jumped on the bandwagon...to roast this contestant. In this manner it was not just one instance or one person ..it was a gang bang.
While I am not interested in beauty pageants ..I did note the low life manner in which a whole organized machine jumped on the bandwagon.
To thinking people this is unavoidable ..very transparent.
They went to great lengths to silence or excoriate this woman. Let me re translate this for you ...to censor.
They do not obviously agree with free speech themselves if it disagrees with the position of these peoples and or their machine they have set up to ambush people. This will happen again..with predictability ...buckle up.
I posted..
and you posted back to me...
Errr....this is tolerance?? or is it entitlement ..censorship??? I'll tell you what it is definitely not....it is not enlightenment.
I don't find it enlightening to hear a group over and over ...demand acceptability from others based on their sexuality..homo or hetero. 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.
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.
And this here jfj123,
I am not defending her at all. I don't like the technique used and misused to roast her...in the public eye. I have enough savvy to see through this nonsense and or drama technique. This is called in some venues ..trial by press.
What I am against is such cheap drama techniques in order to censor her or anyone else who disagrees with a position.
Some people out here are great at extolling free speech until it disagrees with a position or belief they favor...suddenly they gang up on someone and then also use drama techniques as you are want to do here.
Drama does not work with me jfj123. Your technique here as well is bordering on drama queen techniques. The very "victimization" techniques of which I am speaking.
It is standard bill of fare among many of these groups I am describing.
And this...too jfj123
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...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." This is a standard cheap political technique of the lowest and most predictable kind.
It is the very textbook politics of which I describe.
In news and politics ..I automatically know that I am supposed to stop thinking and begin jumping on the bandwagon whenever someone uses the word "Hitler or Nazi." It is supposed to be automatic ..like a default setting on this computer..it is supposed to automatically play through. This too is a type of censorship. It does not work on me. I have seen this one especially ...to many times and with predictability.
So...jfj123..now that I have all that out of the way..I will tell you what I said..
I said they can make all the speeches they want by this technique..all they do is look stupid to those who can think past the next sound bite. Those who can think for themselves and not lock step.
I'm not against freedom of speech. I am certain by the conduct of this group...that they are themselves against freedom of speech and they aptly demonstrated this to a whole nation by what happened to this beauty contestant.
What I am particularly against is such "Stupid." And then compounding it further by treating me like I don't notice it. Or like I should be censored by the same cheap drama techniques because they don't like my freedom of speech. They are in essence saying ..."Freedom of speech for me but not for thee." If you try it we will roast you like we roasted this beauty contestant.
I said...
And you said..
And I say to you...that you should get out more. Not everyone does this. You are exaggerating again..for drama purposes.
I also said...I am not against sexuality...I just think people are so much more than sexuality. Do you know the difference??
I said..
and you said..
pay attention here jfj123...read closely...and leave the drama behind...think ..do not emote. I said....
Why is this..because I happen to think that people are so much more than mere sexuality.
I said..
and you replied..
jfj123, this comes across initially as apples and oranges..unless you are attempting to paint this movement as a devout religion..the religion of defining ones self by their sexuality. In which case we are back to stupid once again. Hows that for apples and oranges jfj123??
You keep trying to stretch back to sexuality as the cause celeb and the moral ethical high ground to justify something here as intelligence and enlightenment. I don't think so at all jfj123. I think it is stupid for the very reasons I explained earlier. I think people are so much more than mere sexuality. Much much more.
I said...
And you said..
Yes..In fact what you are arguing for here is exactly what that person did who asked the question of the contestant of the beauty contest. They judged them and set a whole judgemental machine into gear to roast this woman in judgement for speaking a view with which they did not agree. They in fact judged and sentenced....in the media...and the media went along with it. I told you that you should get out more.
Seriously jfj123, you should try more thinking and less emoting.
There are readers out here who can see what you are doing or attempting here..and the drama techniques which accompany your attempt.
Now that some of them know ..they will be ready for the next press release and drama technique by this very group trying to force acceptance on or by others...if not ..censor them.
I am not interested in how many gay people there are in the US..nor how many hetero people. It is none of my business. I dont meddle in their private affairs. I just don't approve of such stupid...hetero or homo.
and last but not least...
I posted..
To which you replied..
I am not the one using Hitler or the Nazis as an attempt to default through or make others feel guilty or less.
I keep telling you ..you need to get out more. Not everyone out here is easily emoted into feeling guilty. Nor are they that easily denigrated by such methods.
One learns to spot this technique when it is used/misused..over and over and over..ad nauseum. It becomes very predictable. You can see it coming. Which is why it does not work after awhile.
Hope some readers here catch on.
Orangetom
LOL LOL LOL...this is very funny. I was not arguing this point that others do not have freedom of speech. I don't know where you get this idea??
WOW ! you are very paranoid.
If laura has the right to freedom of speech so does everyone else...PERIOD. Doesn't matter if they're black, white, brown or gay.
My point and argument is how the government, media, and also this particular group misuse and deceive others about their intent...particularly in making their methods and goals transparent in the handling of this contestant in the beauty pageant.
Oh..and yes this was indeed one instance. You are correct about this..quite correct. What you ignore in drama techniques to make your point is that a whole portion of the nation ...., the media who shill for them, and this movement jumped on the bandwagon...to roast this contestant. In this manner it was not just one instance or one person ..it was a gang bang.
While I am not interested in beauty pageants ..I did note the low life manner in which a whole organized machine jumped on the bandwagon.
To thinking people this is unavoidable ..very transparent.
They went to great lengths to silence or excoriate this woman. Let me re translate this for you ...to censor.
They do not obviously agree with free speech themselves if it disagrees with the position of these peoples and or their machine they have set up to ambush people. This will happen again..with predictability ...buckle up.
I posted..
I thought back then this is what Bill Maher and others think is greatness..entitlement. No thanks...not for me.
and you posted back to me...
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.
Errr....this is tolerance?? or is it entitlement ..censorship??? I'll tell you what it is definitely not....it is not enlightenment.
I don't find it enlightening to hear a group over and over ...demand acceptability from others based on their sexuality..homo or hetero. 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.
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.
And this here jfj123,
It's called freedom of speech. I'm sure people like yourself defended her while people of an opposing view disagreed with her. The Constitution allows EVERYONE to have FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and not just religious people.
I am not defending her at all. I don't like the technique used and misused to roast her...in the public eye. I have enough savvy to see through this nonsense and or drama technique. This is called in some venues ..trial by press.
What I am against is such cheap drama techniques in order to censor her or anyone else who disagrees with a position.
Some people out here are great at extolling free speech until it disagrees with a position or belief they favor...suddenly they gang up on someone and then also use drama techniques as you are want to do here.
Drama does not work with me jfj123. Your technique here as well is bordering on drama queen techniques. The very "victimization" techniques of which I am speaking.
It is standard bill of fare among many of these groups I am describing.
And this...too 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...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." This is a standard cheap political technique of the lowest and most predictable kind.
It is the very textbook politics of which I describe.
In news and politics ..I automatically know that I am supposed to stop thinking and begin jumping on the bandwagon whenever someone uses the word "Hitler or Nazi." It is supposed to be automatic ..like a default setting on this computer..it is supposed to automatically play through. This too is a type of censorship. It does not work on me. I have seen this one especially ...to many times and with predictability.
So...jfj123..now that I have all that out of the way..I will tell you what I said..
I said they can make all the speeches they want by this technique..all they do is look stupid to those who can think past the next sound bite. Those who can think for themselves and not lock step.
I'm not against freedom of speech. I am certain by the conduct of this group...that they are themselves against freedom of speech and they aptly demonstrated this to a whole nation by what happened to this beauty contestant.
What I am particularly against is such "Stupid." And then compounding it further by treating me like I don't notice it. Or like I should be censored by the same cheap drama techniques because they don't like my freedom of speech. They are in essence saying ..."Freedom of speech for me but not for thee." If you try it we will roast you like we roasted this beauty contestant.
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.
I also said...I am not against sexuality...I just think people are so much more than sexuality. Do you know the difference??
I said..
I am not arguing here against sexuality.
and you said..
No you're arguing against sexuality that is different then yours
pay attention here jfj123...read closely...and leave the drama behind...think ..do not emote. I said....
I don't approve of anyone ..homo or hetero ...who defines themselves by their sexuality
Why is this..because I happen to think that people are so much more than mere sexuality.
I said..
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 you replied..
Many people define themselves based on their religion so based on your logic, those individuals are also stupid.
jfj123, this comes across initially as apples and oranges..unless you are attempting to paint this movement as a devout religion..the religion of defining ones self by their sexuality. In which case we are back to stupid once again. Hows that for apples and oranges jfj123??
You keep trying to stretch back to sexuality as the cause celeb and the moral ethical high ground to justify something here as intelligence and enlightenment. I don't think so at all jfj123. I think it is stupid for the very reasons I explained earlier. I think people are so much more than mere sexuality. Much much more.
I said...
This also clearly shows how ignorant is the media, body politic, and public education for backing such ignorance.
And you said..
Oh you mean those people who suggest that we not judge those who have a different lifestyle then ourselves ? Yeah that sounds horrible !
Yes..In fact what you are arguing for here is exactly what that person did who asked the question of the contestant of the beauty contest. They judged them and set a whole judgemental machine into gear to roast this woman in judgement for speaking a view with which they did not agree. They in fact judged and sentenced....in the media...and the media went along with it. I told you that you should get out more.
Seriously jfj123, you should try more thinking and less emoting.
There are readers out here who can see what you are doing or attempting here..and the drama techniques which accompany your attempt.
Now that some of them know ..they will be ready for the next press release and drama technique by this very group trying to force acceptance on or by others...if not ..censor them.
How many gay people do you think there are in the US ?
I am not interested in how many gay people there are in the US..nor how many hetero people. It is none of my business. I dont meddle in their private affairs. I just don't approve of such stupid...hetero or homo.
and last but not least...
I posted..
...by guilt. It does not work on me.
To which you replied..
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.
I keep telling you ..you need to get out more. Not everyone out here is easily emoted into feeling guilty. Nor are they that easily denigrated by such methods.
One learns to spot this technique when it is used/misused..over and over and over..ad nauseum. It becomes very predictable. You can see it coming. Which is why it does not work after awhile.
Hope some readers here catch on.
Orangetom
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Hi tothetenthpower,
You made my day, this was rather humorous! And very true at the same time.
At least when you think about it, homosexuality is also mentioned in the new testament too! On the other hand, let the person without sin and blemishes throw the first stone.
[edit on 2/6/2010 by Louwey - corrected spelling errors]
[edit on 2/6/2010 by Louwey]
Hi tothetenthpower,
You made my day, this was rather humorous! And very true at the same time.
At least when you think about it, homosexuality is also mentioned in the new testament too! On the other hand, let the person without sin and blemishes throw the first stone.
[edit on 2/6/2010 by Louwey - corrected spelling errors]
[edit on 2/6/2010 by Louwey]
reply to post by gandhi
I know it's a bit late to reply to this but here I go in any case-
When my mother in law bought me this Bible, I started reading right at the beginning, where they explain the translation etc.
From my Holman CSB (Christian Standard Bible)-
Holman CSB English vs Hebrew Original
God ~ Elohim
LORD ~ YHWH (Yahweh)
Lord ~ Adonai
Lord GOD ~ Adonai Yahweh
Lord of Hosts ~ Yahweh Sabaoth
God Almighty ~ El Shaddai
I'm sure every translation of the Bible have different ways of translating the words God Lord, etc,etc. But my question is why? Why not just leave it with the original Hebrew name? That way you cut out the confusion....
[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]
I'm Canadian. It's because of Exodus 1 1 3 "Canada be cool" There you go. Lol on a serious note, my favorite thing to do with religious texts is to determine what in the text was written by who.
For example: In the bible God dose everything good, and The Lord dose everything bad.
AKA: God be the creator, The Lord be the devil.
I know it's a bit late to reply to this but here I go in any case-
When my mother in law bought me this Bible, I started reading right at the beginning, where they explain the translation etc.
From my Holman CSB (Christian Standard Bible)-
Holman CSB English vs Hebrew Original
God ~ Elohim
LORD ~ YHWH (Yahweh)
Lord ~ Adonai
Lord GOD ~ Adonai Yahweh
Lord of Hosts ~ Yahweh Sabaoth
God Almighty ~ El Shaddai
I'm sure every translation of the Bible have different ways of translating the words God Lord, etc,etc. But my question is why? Why not just leave it with the original Hebrew name? That way you cut out the confusion....
[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]
Originally posted by Dallas1611
And once again, any and ALL questions posed here can easily be answered by CONTINUE reading the Bible and comparing scripture with scripture.
And yes, queers are still an abomination in the eyes of God as found in Romans chapter 1 and various other New testament verses.
[edit on 1-6-2010 by Dallas1611]
Some Questions for you Dallas:
a. If a man- a gay man, believed that he was a sinner and performing abominable acts against the bible, could he convene his neighbors to bludgeon him to death to fulfill the law?
b. What if you told him that he could renounce his sins and sing songs of eternal glory to יהוה and he said, "Thank you, but no thanks... just bring the boys out with the stones. I'm all good with Leviticus- beats the 'amen' section in Heaven." Would you help him out and put him into Sheol as Yeshua would have done (to fulfill the law)?
c. If Yeshua would only ever fulfill the law- WWJD in the case of an errant teenager who skipped skewl, committed premarital sex, masturbated to pornography and refused to adhere to his parents' demands to clean his room- Would he remain clean in the law and perform his duty to stone the boy? Would you do as Yeshua would have?
Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by jfj123
I said they can make all the speeches they want by this technique..all they do is look stupid to those who can think past the next sound bite. Those who can think for themselves and not lock step.
I'm not against freedom of speech. I am certain by the conduct of this group...that they are themselves against freedom of speech and they aptly demonstrated this to a whole nation by what happened to this beauty contestant.
How do you get that they're against freedom of speech out of their actions? They disagreed with what she said and went to great lengths to try and publicize their views about the situation. Nobody was preventing her from reiterating her opinion, they merely chose to express their own views on the subject in order to provide opposition to her views.
The basis of any free society is free discourse which is what happened here. When you make a statement in a public forum you leave that statement open to scrutiny by others who are free to agree or disagree with it and respond in turn with their own opinions as long as it doesn't infringe upon your rights. The way I see it, an organized campaign against homophobia, using this woman's statement as a flag to rally around, didn't violate any of her rights in the slightest. They never (from what you've stated here) said that she wasn't allowed to talk about it anymore or that she shouldn't be able to hold these views, they just disagreed with what she was saying and thought it important enough to get their own views about the situation out in the open.
The media picked up on it and spread it around, so what? If they thought it was a good story then that's their right (not that I agree with many journalistic practices in the modern mainstream media) to report on it and she knew, or should've known, that since she was in a public contest, any statement she made was fair game for the media and any other member of the public who chose to respond to it.
The fact that the opposition against her was so strong is evidence of nothing more than a clear refutation of her beliefs by a large segment of the public. Having unpopular views means that you will, by necessity, be subject to some level of scorn or disgust from a segment of the population. So long as they're not actively trying to stop you, as an individual, from expressing your opinion (opposing her being allowed to broadcast her views on tv for instance is not the same as stifling her ability to express herself as a person) then you just have to put up with their resentment. You don't have to change your opinion but they don't have to like your opinion either. That's the way I see this case, she was free to state her opinion and she did, but there were a lot of people who didn't like it and they said they didn't like it. They didn't make her change her mind (they can't really, even if they wanted to) and in return they were free to express their opposition to her ideas.
I think the funniest part of this thread is that someone would do more than just tune through the voice of Dr. Laura. It gets even more hilarious
that someone would take the time to write to her! Lol!
Great thread. Got to love the rubber-on-the-road of Biblical skidmarks.
Great thread. Got to love the rubber-on-the-road of Biblical skidmarks.
reply to post by blowuptheoutsideworld
It does. Cherry-picking was rampant then, just as it is now. If you really look at church dogma, most of it is based on the gospel of John and the writings of Paul. Of the little that doesn't have its roots in those, much of it was created ...basically out of thin air by church leaders.
Take the Gospels, for example.
During the first several centuries of Christianity there were some FIFTY gospels circulating, each purporting to have been written by someone close to Jesus, and each with its own slant on his life and teaching. Many of these were completely spurious, some were written to shore up the teachings of a particular sect, and many bore little resemblance to what Jesus himself probably taught. Over the decades and centuries his original teachings were amended as those who came after him added their own beliefs, and other things were lost into the mists of time. You can see this if you look at the existing gospels chronologically; the earliest works are a bare-bones framework of sayings and highlights of his life (Mark, the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas), while each subsequent version adds more details and the author’s interpretation of his words and actions.
Why did some gospels merit inclusion in the bible while others did not?
Quite simply---they were popular.
No single person sat down with a stack of manuscripts and said, “Let’s put this one in but not that one,” rather it happened gradually over the years. There have been multiple “official” lists of what books belong in the bible, including the gospels, with the final shape of that volume not being settled on for several centuries as various religious leaders gave their seal of approval to some books and not others.
Although the church has recognized Matthew, Mark, and Luke almost from the beginning, at one point it also recognized others. And although most people don’t know it, the gospel of John, which is included in the present canon, was for more than a century regarded as heretical and didn’t appear on any official list. In the end, as the Christian movement became more of a coherent group, it came down to whether the church hierarchy approved of a book or not, and whether a book was popular with Christians in general.
The reason we have four gospels as opposed to 6, or 9, or 11, or 3, is because near the end of the third century Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons declared "It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life; it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying our flesh. . . The living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord."
Talk about cherry-picking.
I have a heretical dream---that the entire New Testament be looked at and revised in light of modern scholarship and historical criticism. I campaign for the Gospel of Thomas to be included alongside Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
Kind of proves that the theory of a holy trinity is another idea promoted by people who cherry pick verses of the bible to perpetuate what they already believe.
It does. Cherry-picking was rampant then, just as it is now. If you really look at church dogma, most of it is based on the gospel of John and the writings of Paul. Of the little that doesn't have its roots in those, much of it was created ...basically out of thin air by church leaders.
Take the Gospels, for example.
During the first several centuries of Christianity there were some FIFTY gospels circulating, each purporting to have been written by someone close to Jesus, and each with its own slant on his life and teaching. Many of these were completely spurious, some were written to shore up the teachings of a particular sect, and many bore little resemblance to what Jesus himself probably taught. Over the decades and centuries his original teachings were amended as those who came after him added their own beliefs, and other things were lost into the mists of time. You can see this if you look at the existing gospels chronologically; the earliest works are a bare-bones framework of sayings and highlights of his life (Mark, the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas), while each subsequent version adds more details and the author’s interpretation of his words and actions.
Why did some gospels merit inclusion in the bible while others did not?
Quite simply---they were popular.
No single person sat down with a stack of manuscripts and said, “Let’s put this one in but not that one,” rather it happened gradually over the years. There have been multiple “official” lists of what books belong in the bible, including the gospels, with the final shape of that volume not being settled on for several centuries as various religious leaders gave their seal of approval to some books and not others.
Although the church has recognized Matthew, Mark, and Luke almost from the beginning, at one point it also recognized others. And although most people don’t know it, the gospel of John, which is included in the present canon, was for more than a century regarded as heretical and didn’t appear on any official list. In the end, as the Christian movement became more of a coherent group, it came down to whether the church hierarchy approved of a book or not, and whether a book was popular with Christians in general.
The reason we have four gospels as opposed to 6, or 9, or 11, or 3, is because near the end of the third century Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons declared "It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life; it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying our flesh. . . The living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord."
Talk about cherry-picking.
I have a heretical dream---that the entire New Testament be looked at and revised in light of modern scholarship and historical criticism. I campaign for the Gospel of Thomas to be included alongside Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
new topics
-
How To Spot Fake U.F.O. Photos
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
LA Mayor Bass Demanded $49M in Additional LAFD Cuts One Week Before Wildfires
Mainstream News: 16 hours ago, 17 flags -
Just Came Across These Unusual Old UFO Pics
Aliens and UFOs: 14 hours ago, 7 flags -
Scary video of face in an abandoned house
Paranormal Studies: 12 hours ago, 5 flags -
How To Spot Fake U.F.O. Photos
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago, 5 flags -
Carry On!
Short Stories: 17 hours ago, 3 flags -
Sepultura - Territory - With New Drummer Greyson Nekrutman
Music: 17 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 168 • : Lazy88 -
Oh, Good Gosh. “Kremlin Warns Stay Away from Greenland.”
World War Three • 35 • : Lazy88 -
Gravitic Propulsion--What IF the US and China Really Have it?
General Conspiracies • 40 • : Lazy88 -
Judge rules president-elect Donald Trump must be sentenced in 'hush money' trial
US Political Madness • 122 • : JadedGhost -
Fire insurance in LA withdrawn months ago
General Conspiracies • 39 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 395 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Archbisop Vigano Warns of Deep State and Deep Church
New World Order • 12 • : FlyersFan -
This should be plastered all over the airwaves
Mainstream News • 56 • : Flyingclaydisk -
How To Spot Fake U.F.O. Photos
Aliens and UFOs • 4 • : SteamyAmerican -
Just Came Across These Unusual Old UFO Pics
Aliens and UFOs • 6 • : NoCorruptionAllowed