And Torah never said to kill someone just for saying hes gay.
It says kill someone who HAS gay sex ONLY if he were warned within 3 seconds of committing the actual act and ONLY is he were seen doing it by two witnesses who themselves are killed if they swore falsely and the one they falsely accused goes free and obviously does not get executed.
These standards of proof and trial (and others as well) made executions (For all categories, put together) quite rare (fewer then once in 70 years).
"And Torah never said to kill someone just for saying hes gay."
No, it says to kill somebody for BEING gay which is what I also said. Are you endorsing the murder of homosexuals?
Also, 2 witnessess? So people of ancient times were surveyed by pairs of perverted voyeurs in the hope they would catch someone having consensual sex in the privacy of their homes?
Stop making crap up and accept how atrocious the book is. After all, if you thought it was a good book you wouldn't take exception to it
@nedwergs "Look here Thol combe - you've got it wrong - God is Merciful - Most Merciful He is - He keeps in mind our best interest."
Aaaand you say this in spite of everything not only in the bible and everything reflected in reality? On some level you need to be aware that what you just said to me is entirely untrue but you are compelled to say it anyway.
How can somebody endorse the beating of slaves and be most merciful at the same time?
@ProcInc What absurd, atrocious, ridiculous, bigoted and sadistic laws are you talking about?
Because none of those exist in Torah and I have utterly refuted all who have tried to pove to me there were such things.
And if you are so concerned about people 'getting beaten' why do you promote the radical Atheist religion which is not just pro beating but pro murder.
@1tryingtoimprove "What absurd, atrocious, ridiculous, bigoted and sadistic laws are you talking about?"
absurd such as teaching that eating shellfish is an abomination worthy of damnation, atrocious such as the glory of total genocide of neighbouring races, bigoted such as the slaughter of people just for being gay or even a disobedient child or disallowing the disabled from entering temples, sadistic such as taking slaves and driving a spike through their ear as a sign of them being property
@1tryingtoimprove "What makes you think you are qualified to decide not eating shellfish is 'absurd' just because you want to eat it?"
What kind of a ridiculous question is that? One may as well ask what makes you think you are qualified to eat anything edible? If one wants to claim that eating a specific edible (and nutritious) food is an abomination they would be required to back up why. But you can't back it up because it's a silly rule.
@1tryingtoimprove "Your claim that it's 'silly' is not any kind of 'scientific' fact' that you have an unbiased proof for."
The unbiased proof comes form the fact that shellfish and pork is a staple to many people and it is a perfectly healthy and nutritious foodstuff.
It is far healthier and more sanitary than some of the recipies in your silly fables such as the cake cooked with human excrement for fuel (Ezekiel 4:12)
@ProcInc : The silly fables are the ones you are spewing all over the place and what is clean or unclean is a spiritual cleanliness not physical and we see the difference in my factual posts and your lies full of unclean falsehoods and personal insults in place of facts.
@ProcInc : I said that these liberals wee antisemites and you tried to counter it by claiming no it's the Christians who are the antisemites so I did not lie you are the liar in everything you claimed about me and about Torah.
How about our absolute and blatant lie that Torah supposedly said to kill someone for 'being' gay which you said more then once, even AFTER I corrected you on it.
@1tryingtoimprove "How about our absolute and blatant lie that Torah supposedly said to kill someone for 'being' gay which you said more then once, even AFTER I corrected you on it."
I don't understand your weird fixation on believing you corrected this. I said that The Torah commands murder for somebody for being gay (and that includes making love) you tried to spin me to saying I only meant a person "saying" they're gay and then confirmed my claim that a truly gay person is killed
@1tryingtoimprove "I said that these liberals wee antisemites and you tried to counter it by claiming no it's the Christians who are the antisemites"
This makes no sense either. First of all there are such thing as Christian liberals so one can not dichtomise the two.
Second of all the Wall Street Protest is no antisemitic in nature. I have no doubt that there are antisemites within in the protest just as there are those who fully embrace the jewish people and even jewish people themselves
@ProcInc: Everything I said makes sense to someone with an intelligence. But since you are a brainwashed liberal I see why you can't understand simple facts.
A true Christian would by definition be a conservative so no they cannot be both unless they are onl pretending to follow Christianity which the White Aryans and many other liberals, do.
Second all the false blame and lies about 'the bankers' is nothing but a codeword for 'Jews' and everyone knows it.
@1tryingtoimprove "A true Christian would by definition be a conservative"
Haha right. I forget which part of the bible says that. I guess Jesus wasn't a Christian then what with all his liberal sentiments about distribution of wealth and his offering of free healthcare.
"'the bankers' is nothing but a codeword for 'Jews' and everyone knows it."
I have to ask at this point. Do you believe that working class America has no cause for economic grievances?
@ProcInc : Haha yourself, the Bible does not talk in those terms as if you didn't know that.
And Jesus never said anything like we should support theft and forced communism, that liberals want.
Yeas the working class has legitimate grievances but nit against 'the bankers' but against their liberal leaders who caused all the problems and lied about 'the bankers'.
Roll back anti business legislation to what it was in the early 1800's (other then child labor and slavery laws) .
@1tryingtoimprove "Jesus never said anything like we should support theft and forced communism, that liberals want."
Jesus did say if a man steals your cloak give him your cloak as well. He also said that anybody who did not give up all their possessions could not be his disciple.
That sounds an awful lot similar to what you accuse of being liberal sentiments
"And What "total genocide' are you talking about?"
Your sacred fables rejoice in the stories of the extermination of tribes such as the Amalekites or the Jebusites.
"And quote the chapter and verse that says that someone who says he's gay is instantly slaughtered just for saying that."
Again, I said being gay. Not saying he is. You are apparently still endorsing the slaughter of gay people since you aren't taking that point at face value
@ProcInc: Prove it's 'fables' if it's 'fables' then the slaughter never happened so ou are attacing Torah for something that never even happened. Since when can fables predict the future as Torah did when the Bibles codes predicted IN ADVANCE the assassination of Yitschok Rabin .
And you said Torah said to kill someone for 'being' (whatever that means) gay and you cannot back that up.
@1tryingtoimprove "prove it's 'fables' if it's 'fables' then the slaughter never happened so ou are attacing Torah for something that never even happened."
We know it is fables based on the discoveries on archaeology of the time and the sheer absurdity of many of the campaign's clearly sensationalised claims (Such as the sound of a horn tearing a wall down).
At any rate although we can take solace in them not being true many think they are and think it's wonderful somehow
@ProcInc The evidence exists it's in Egypt and the city were its buried is not allowed by the government to by viewed by anyone who would use it to prove any Jewish claims.
I never said I did not believe the hon brought the wall down I said I was skeptical about the magic you said you believed in.
Those who had leavened bread could have had the right size and tone etc.. to do it because G-d told them how.
@1tryingtoimprove "The evidence exists it's in Egypt and the city were its buried is not allowed by the government to by viewed by anyone who would use it to prove any Jewish claims."
How can you claim the evidence exists and simply has not been viewed by anybody? How would anybody know then? Besides, evidence should be scattered every between Egypt and the Middle East and it isn't.
@ProcInc : Because some have snuck out some videos of some of the evidence such as Hebrew script written on a wall with something to the effect of a prayer that the sons of Jacob be feed from their captivity.
Just because you say the evidence should be scattered and you haven't seen it doe snot prove it couldn't have happened.
Yeah you started talking about magic so you must be the one believing in it since I never said anything about it.
@1tryingtoimprove "Just because you say the evidence should be scattered and you haven't seen it doe snot prove it couldn't have happened."
But nobody has seen it and not for want of looking. There have been plenty of hoaxes (some of which were very blatant to the extent we can assume they were only made for publicity) but in centuries of passionate searching there is no evidence whatsoever that what should be an archaeologically bountiful historical event came out with bupkiss
And while absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence the sheer amount of evidence that SHOULD have been found related coupled with the amount of time spent looking makes total lack of evidence incredibly suspect
"What evidence should there be anyway?"
The same evidence we expect of any long and slow migration. Remember the Exodus was meant to take forty years yet was a relatively short journey.
@1tryingtoimprove "You cannot go out and find any evidence of any wagon trains that went from th east of America to the west still laying on the ground either."
Actually in rare cases you can. Aside from that there are the remains of settlements, various markings by pioneers and the unfair advantage of first hand accounts.
The evidence is quite abundant which is why if we apply the same standard of proof we ascribe to settlement of the American West to the Biblical Exodus, the Exodus fails
@1tryingtoimprove "Th evidence is far from 'abundant' and that is with settlements like buildings and only from 150 years or so ago."
Wrong again. You could even go to museums and look for yourself at the multitude of artifacts of the American settlement. There are even photographs.
We can find artifacts 9000 to 40,000 years old and most of those are in places equally hostile to artifacts. There was simply no biblical Exodus and all serious historians accept this
@ProcInc wasn't wrong the fist time so I can't be 'wrong again'.
That makes you the wrong one...again.
I specifically said 'laying on the ground' not in museums because what is in museums has already been picked up from the ground and is not there still on the ground for the next person to 'find'.
And you cannot prove that anything ELSE found is '40.000 ears' old since no one can go back to time to see anything existing before G-d said it did.
@1tryingtoimprove "I specifically said 'laying on the ground' not in museums because what is in museums has already been picked up from the ground and is not there still on the ground for the next person to 'find'."
I also pointed out there are artifacts still fount out there. The artifacts in museums were found on the ground...meaning they were evidence found on the ground. It's quite funny you tried to claim that nullifies them as evidence actually.
@ProcInc : even you admitted that the evidence still laying on the ground was only in certain places under certain circumstances and ou totally ignoed the fact that Jews built nothing permanemnt in the dessert to be found' later. Also I never said being in a museum nullfiies them as evidence.
I just pointed out that there was no one in the dessert for 3000 picking up things to preserve in museums so whoever too it over that period as scavengers and the like won't have it on display now.
@1tryingtoimprove "Like I said just because you haven't found it does not mean they were not there."
It certainly means that there is no reason to pretend that they were. You seem to misunderstand the concept of "Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence". It isn't a rhetorical device that allows people to believe in things for which there is no evidence. It is more complicated than that. The thing is there is no evidence when there *should be* not that there is simply no evidence
@ProcInc Also when there are other proofs for Torah (like it's singular ability to predict the future such that people were actually warned AHEAD of TIME and not after the fact as Moby Dick does) then one incident that supposedly does not have supposed 'necessary' proof is no evidence whatsoever, that the event couldn't have happened.
You are just being silly and repeating debunked arguments now. I don't think continuing a conversation with a religiously fanatic 13 year old is going to be very intellectually stimulating.
I on'y feel bad for you for your lack of education and insight into both complex and simple issues
@ProcInc The debunked arguments are all yours and all you can do in typical liberal fashion is rant and rave after having been exposed as the silly liar you are.
@ProcInc You are ling about my beliefs RE homosexuals as well and anyone who looks through the posts, can SEE I never said to kill someone just for being gay.
And you are the name calling liar espousing antisemitic hatred. not me.
@1tryingtoimprove "anyone who looks through the posts, can SEE I never said to kill someone just for being gay." actually you did as you say here
"It says kill someone who HAS gay sex ONLY if he were warned within 3 seconds of committing the actual act and ONLY is he were seen doing it by two witnesses"
You also lied in since there is no 3 second warning (what would the warning be against?) and the concept of witnesses is silly.
@ProcInc : So now you put you lies on display LMAO
Killing someone for doing an ACT is not killing them for BEING something.
A person who lsuts after other men but does nothing about is gay a heterosexual who fornicates with another man could with warning and proper witnesses be killed for doing the act
And prove I lied about the warning liar.
And it would be against DOING the ACT.
You really should learn basic English before attempting to argue with adults.
@1tryingtoimprove "Killing someone for doing an ACT is not killing them for BEING something"
It is a deterrent against them being what they are.
"And prove I lied about the warning liar"
It isn't in the Torah, anywhere. In fact not even the term "3 seconds" appears anywhere.
Even applying your redefinition, you believe that non celibate homosexuals should be murdered. I on the other hand believe murder is wrong and it is atrocious of you to endorse it
@ProcInc : A deterrent is not the same as 'killing them for BEING. Your lie still stands as the lie it is.
And it is supposed to be deterrent for aberrant and evil behavior which even the Psychiatric profession used to say was a disorder, until the gay mafia forced them to change it.
And tell me how much Torah you ever studied to no what is in it or not?
Are you claiming you studied all of Torah including all the Oral Torah which Moses got along with the written Torah?
@1tryingtoimprove "And it is supposed to be deterrent for aberrant and evil behavior which even the Psychiatric profession used to say was a disorder, until the gay mafia forced them to change it."
Haha wow...the gay mafia hey?
So let's review. You endorse the murder of noncelibate homosexuals.
You do so because the "psychatric profession" says it was until they were forced by....(dun dun DUN!) the Gay Mafia...
Am I right in saying that you endorse the murder of noncelibate gays? yes or no?
@1tryingtoimprove "Lying that Torah endorses 'murder; is antisemitic."
It isn't a lie because it's there in black and white but even if it wasn't true it isn't antisemitic because it is opposition to archaic practices and beliefs. Certainly modern Jewish people don't endorse these sick practises and one would require speaking about them as a whole to do so anyway.
I oppose religion because it breeds twisted people like you on occasion, not all religious followers
@ProcInc Where doe Torah say 'go murder' in those words, liar.
You LOVE murder claiming you are supposedly against it just another lie on your part.
If you were against murder you would be against sick practices of the indoctrination of children into the gay lifestyle that spreads aids and kills them as well as so many other evils of the liberal religions like all the animal rights wackos who endorse murder of anyone (and their friends/ families too) they accuse of 'abusing' animals.
@1tryingtoimprove "Where doe Torah say 'go murder' in those words, liar."
Well first of all the Torah isn't originally in English. Second of all it does say to Kill (specifically by stoning). At which point I am rather disinterested in which synonym is used. Whether somebody is killed, murdered or stoned to death matters little to them. They are dead by the violent hand of another in any case
"If you were against murder you would be against sick practices of the indoctrination of children into the gay lifestyle"
I think you are confusing encouraging tolerance with indoctrinating into something. If more people were taught to tolerate there would be less people murdering or beating homosexuals for fun.
Furthermore heterosexuality also spreads the HIV virus. It doesn't matter which orientation you are, it matters if you have the virus. Schools teach HIV awareness for this reason
"No tolerance it taught for Religious Jews who are bashed by those like you who pretend to care about 'tolerance' "
Not so, tolerance for all religion is encouraged. Except of course in schools with a powerful religion lobby that believes only Christianity should be acknowledged.
You would of course agree that promoting tolerance of Judaism is not forcing students to convert to Judaism. Yet that is what you are trying to argue for homosexuality. One can not convert to homosexuality anyway
@ProcInc That is another lie. you cannot show one public school class where the values of Torah ate taught the same way that the Gaytheist religion is.
Where is any proof that homosexuality cannot be taught?
All pleasure is in the mind and a mind can be brainwashed.
@1tryingtoimprove "you cannot show one public school class where the values of Torah ate taught the same way that the Gaytheist religion is."
"Gaytheist religion?" what fresh hilarity is this haha.
"Where is any proof that homosexuality cannot be taught?"
Sexuality is a complex integration genetic, chemical and neurological factors. You can't change their sexuality by teaching them tolerance any more than you can persuade them to grow a sixth finger
Rabbis and some Christian ministers have changed people from gay to straight and they now live extremely happy hetero sexual lives.
The Gaytheist religion has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance it is hatred pure and simple.
Tolerance would be for Jews as well complete with how to out on Tephillin and how to Keep Shabbos to be anything equal to the supposed (fake) 'tolerance' for gays taught in public schools.
@1tryingtoimprove "Rabbis and some Christian ministers have changed people from gay to straight and they now live extremely happy hetero sexual lives."
The true story behind those conversions is much darker than the story you bought. I won't go into that but there are plenty of videos on this site alone.
"the supposed (fake) 'tolerance' for gays taught in public schools."
Perhaps instead of fake tolerance for gays we should endorse genuine tolerance for gays in that case.
@ProcInc : The story is not so dark that is just propaganda.
REAL tolerance would be what
I said it was and exactly HOW it would include Religious Judiasm, and the gay groups and other liberals would NEVER tolerate REAL tolerance because it's against their religion.
@1tryingtoimprove "you don't GET 'the virus' unless you do ACTs like the one that you are promoting."
HIV can be transmitted in a number of other ways not just sexual acts.
Besides, both homosexual and heterosexual acts of relations transmit the HIV virus.
All because you have an unfounded hatred for people of a different sexual orientation is no reason to take away their rights or to expose them to hatred of other, more violent people by discouraging tolerance of them
Two gay people who have it would still spread it in a car accident where their blood spill into the cut of someone else or in a transfusion.
The promotion of the gay lifestyle is by it very essence anti monogamy anyway .
Trying to make the gay population monogamous....... ROFL
And a devoutly religious man would not have HIV since he would not be doing anything to GET it unless it was from one of those transfusions where the blood was not screened properly.
@1tryingtoimprove "Two gay people who have it would still spread it in a car accident where their blood spill into the cut of someone else or in a transfusion."
But the same thing could happen to a heterosexual Jewish couple.
"And a devoutly religious man would not have HIV since he would not be doing anything to GET it"
Unless of course his wife or partner was HIV positive. Or if he was in the car accident you mentioned earlier
@ProcInc I already mentioned those possibilities but they are quite rare and I have never heard of a single instance of it happening to a properly observant devoutly Chassidic Jew .
@1tryingtoimprove " I already mentioned those possibilities but they are quite rare and I have never heard of a single instance of it happening to a properly observant devoutly Chassidic Jew ."
So if the other possibilities are rare then you must have no problem with accepting two HIV negative men engaging in a relationship. Because aside from your hypothetical 'freak HIV laced car accident' there is no chance of the virus being spread is there?
@ProcInc : The problem with promoting the gay lifestyle is that it will not stay monogamous or aids free and the society that promotes it is taking away the rights of G-d fearing people and promotions liberal protected groups over the groups that are not politically correct.
There is a reason why G-d said it was evil and lot just because does not want people to be happy.
@1tryingtoimprove "Trying to make the gay population monogamous....... ROFL"
Many people certainly are trying that and it isn't the gay people who are ruining it but people like you setting up legislation to prevent it.
For example, you said yourself that if people are happily married it curbs the spread of HIV. In which case why prevent gay people getting married? It would at least *encourage* the pursuit of monogamy would it not?
If we can take away peoples right to eat or smoke what the want then we can do it to gay as well unless of course you want to admit that all the garbage about banning transfats and smoking in bars etc... is nothing but a liberal expression of hatred for peoples right to do business and run their own lives..
And I am not advocating doing it to gays Torahs laws in that areas only apply when G-d rebuilds the Temple and it doesn't and according to you, that never will happen.
"If we can take away peoples right to eat or smoke what the want then we can do it to gay as well unless of course you want to admit that all the garbage about banning transfats and smoking in bars etc... is nothing but a liberal expression of hatred for peoples right to do business and run their own lives.."
Fine let's grant that. Banning gay people from having sex is just like banning transfats and smoking; nothing but a liberal expression of hatred for people's rights. Agreed?
Great! So you acknowledge that it would be against your principles to discriminate against gay people.
"So you are now agreeing that liberalism is evil and takes away peoples rights?"
As I have always said, any system that takes away people's fundamental rights is to be opposed. Just as any system that advocates special rights for one group of interest.
If you want to make that a strawman of 'liberalism' fine with me.
@ProcInc and forcing me to change My definition of marriage is not mr discriminating against gays its the other way around.
No one is stopping them from having in a gay church any ceremony they want and calling it whatever they want.
But it is my right to hire who I want or to not hire who I don't want to for ANY reason and it is no one elses business, who I hire or how much me and the employee agree he will be paid for his work.
And my taxes must not go to those my religion says not to support
@1tryingtoimprove Family guy is paedophillia ? I was not aware of this. Anyway, I think t would be irresponsible for a parent to let young children watch family guy. However, there is a huge difference, one is comedy and the other is being taught that it is the the perfect moral code written by a perfectly moral being. Is it appropriate to teach children that wizards and witches are to be stoned to death ? or that if they misbehave they deserve death ?
@ryan84160 : The whole show is not not all about pedophilia but they did promote it, in at least 2 episodes.
So called 'comedy' that people watch over and over again because the enjoy it so much can be a far more powerful tool for indoctrination then anything the kids are sitting and learning in an class.
And this idea you seem to have that so man people were being stoned to death is absolutely wrong.
Like I said to Procinc it did not happen more then once in 70 years.
@1tryingtoimprove I don't know what episodes your are talking, but I am 99.999999999999999999% sure they were not "promoting" paedophillia but were making a joke. Parents shouldn't let young children watch family guy anyway.
@ryan84160 : I am talking about two episodes. In one Peter the father; does a nude dance in front of his daughter and her friends practically rubbing his behind, in her face.
In another he is supposedly drunk or otherwise impaired somehow and he goes into what he thinks is his wifes room to have sex but it turns out to be his son who then screams (you hear the sounds and don't actually see it, going on but they make sure you can tell) he does the same to his other son.
@1tryingtoimprove I haven't seen those episodes, but I would certainly say that is not appropriate for young children. However, there are many stories in the bible that are much worse than that and of course family guy is not being taught to children as a moral code.
Well everything the racist father in All in the Family said was just a joke as well but liberals like you demanded it be taken off the air.
Lets see someone try and make a 'joke' about Christians having fun beating up a gay person on some show. You would not be able to get it on the air no matter how funny it was.
This garbage from Family Guy, is indoctrination DISGUISED as 'a joke' and it is not even disguised as a joke when taught in public schools.
@1tryingtoimprove I don't even know what all in the family is, but to say that family guy is liberal indoctrination is ridiculous. They make fun of just about every group on the planet including blacks and gays.
@1tryingtoimprove "And this idea you seem to have that so man people were being stoned to death is absolutely wrong." I didn't sayso so many were stoned to death.I don't care if it happened 0 times in all of history, what I care about is what the bible says and what it teaches. It is disgusting to teach your children that homosexuals deserve to be stoned or that they deserve to be stoned if they misbehave. What kind of a parent would teach this to a small child ?
@1tryingtoimprove our violence ?? ahah I think thats correct, your religions are violent.
How does God cramp my lifestyle ??? I do what I want without even so much as a thought about what this ancient story book character would think if he were real.
@1tryingtoimprove I wan't to indoctrinate children to be gay? Please take off your tinfoil hat again. First of all, I am not gay. Second, children should not be involved in any "sexual culture".
I like to bully people that are smaller than me? Where are you getting this shit from? You pulled this straight out of your asshole.
"And if you are against gay sex being taught in schools prove it show me where you ever posted against it." Are you really this dense ? I could do the exact same thing to you. If you don't believe that all blacks should be executed show me where you ever posted against it. If you cant you I guess you are lying. Do you not see how fallacious this type of argument is ?
@ryan84160: More people are killed by liberal policies in public schools in America in a year then wee ever killed by the Jewish court, in 70 years.
Look at all the so called 'enlightened' and 'evolved' liberal atheists and all the violence and death they promote just in the fake phony fraudulent name of so called 'animal rights' where they demand that dog breeders be 'slowly tortured to death' along with all their friends and families as I have seen them say in posts all over the internet.
@1tryingtoimprove Killed by liberal policies ?? Take off your tinfoil hat.
I am a HUGE animal rights supporter and I have never heard anyone say anything like this, but if I did I would certainly condemn it because that is horrible and it would be much worse if they were teaching their children that people deserved to be tortured and murdered as the bible does.
@ryan84160: You are a 'huge animal rights' supporter?
So you are by definition against the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution which either says or has an amendment that says, people are to be secure in their person and property which they cannot be when the government can come in and dictate to them how many cats they may own or anything else in the fake phony name of 'animal rights.
See 'eagle attacks wolf' video and see the comments demanding an entire country be nuked.
@1tryingtoimprove I shouldn't have said animal rights because I don't believe animals have rights in the same way that humans i have right. What I should have said is that I am a strong believer in animal welfare. I don't know what your getting at about the cats but I do not believe animals are "just property" that you can do with what you please.
@ryan84160 I believe we have a responsibility toward treating animals decently but nothing in the US Constitution gives government or anyone else, the right to come int9o someones private property and arrest them based on how they treat their animals.
ou can argue that ou might thin that is wrong but either we (in the USA) follow the Constitution or we allow government to do anything it wants like a dictatorship with no restrictions on it whatsoever without any Constitutional preventions.
@1tryingtoimprove I love the constitution of the USA, I think it is one of the most amazing documents every written in history, but it is far from perfect. The original constitution also considered black humans to be "just property". We can argue about weather it is write or wrong and we can also make it illegal for people to needlessly torture and harm animals. Animals are not just like other forms or property, they have a capacity suffer and they deserve to be protected.
@ryan84160 I recently heard from a friend who has a daughter who she had in a Jewish day school and the daughter was happy and eager to learn and respectful of her parents and friendly and could not pass a charity box without insisting on throwing some money in it.
She had financial problems and could no longer afford to keep her daughter in the Jewish school which could not afford to carry any more students for free without going bankrupt.
@ryan84160 So she was forced to put her daughter into a public school and over the next year, the change was like night and day going to the exact opposite personality.
Now she is disrespectful toward elders cares nothing about helping other like the poor and is maladjusted and not very interested in learning anything.
And it's far from just her, this is the product of todays liberal atheist controlled public schools and why they all want to protest the fact that some people--- continued
@1tryingtoimprove I actually agree that the public schools in your country are absolutely horrible, but what does this have to do with teaching Leviticus?
@ryan84160 want to protest the fact that some people worked hard and became successful in life and why they want to kill them and steal their money instead of themselves working for it becoming successful themselves.
Liberalism promotes the most and worst and most extreme violent of any group or movement or religion in all of history by far.
Thr same liberals that are doing this are the same ones who started WW2 and worshiped their Fuhrer and they officially endorse the Wall street ones.
@1tryingtoimprove take some lithium and take off your tin foil hat buddy. Who wants to kill people and steal their money ? I have never heard of this.
"Thr same liberals that are doing this are the same ones who started WW2 and worshiped their Fuhrer and they officially endorse the Wall street ones." What???? Liberals started WW2 and worship hitler ? you really need to stop listening to Alex Jones.
@1tryingtoimprove What has any of this got to do with teaching Leviticus to Children? Why don't you actually adress the Leviticus issue istead of ignoring it and rambling on and on and on about how liberals worship Hitler and other crazy conspiracy theories.
@ryan84160 You are the one with the Tin foil hat believing in crazy conspiracies.
So now you admit that you don't care what Torah actually teaches.
All you care about are your twisted theoretical claims about what you falsely THINK it teaches. I DID address what it ACTUALLY teaches and you are ranting about 'disguSting teACHINGS' AND yet everything YOU liberals support caused nothing I can address this ore fully in about 24 hours.
@1tryingtoimprove Where did you adress the barbaric teachings in the torah ?? That's right you didn't. You accused me of being a liberal for some reason and then ranted about conspiracies and how horrible liberals are.
@ryan84160 I pointed out thee are no 'barbaric teachings in Torah only barbaric liberals think there ae because they want to bash Torah so the can have the barbaric world THEY want.
Stories about evil and what not to do is not the same as making it 'funny' and 'enjoyable' to emulate as Family Guy does and it IS being taught as a moral code in public schools.
Now they are having ids go to stores to buy condoms and teaching them about anal sex in public schools.
@1tryingtoimprove Oh no not condoms. We wouldn't want to teach kids about safe sex. If you believe that teaching kids to obey their parents or they deserve to be executed is not barbaric, I really hope that you do not have children.
@1tryingtoimprove Abstinence isn't safe sex because it isn't even sex at all. It is correct that the the only way to keep the risk of unwanted consequences of having sex at 0 is by abstaining from sex. I am not opposed to teaching this at all, but I also think its wise to teach safe sex to them if they do end up having sex because most of them will regardless of what they are taught.
@ryan84160 So why don't schools teach kids how to fight if they 'might' have sex 'anyway' and so you thin they must be taught how to do it safely (which is impossible) many will for sure be forced into a fight sooner or later so why not teach them how to fight?
Why not teach them how to drive safely while drunk since many do that as well?
@1tryingtoimprove It's impossible to have sex sex ? That's news to me. I think teaching self defense to kids (especially girls)is a great idea.
"Why not teach them how to drive safely while drunk since many do that as well?" Driving while drunk is criminal and dangerous. A better suggestion would be, to teach kids how to drive safely and minimize the risk of getting into an accident which would include NOT driving while drunk.
@ryan84160 Bike riding is an innocent activity and children having sex is perverted and evil no matter how 'natural' they claim it is.
Bullying and beating other ids up is just as 'natural'.
3/5 clause was abolished by the 143th amendment and was only created as compromise to the southern states that never would have joined the union if they could not have representation based on how many slaves they had.
The same Constitution that allowed it provided ways to abolish it which is what it did.
@1tryingtoimprove "children having sex is perverted" That depends how you define a child. If it means younger than a teenager, I would agree with that. However, if it is used to mean anyone under the age of 18 or 21, I would completely disagree.
"Bullying and beating other ids up is just as 'natural'." I didn't even mention the word natural.
@ryan84160 Any sex outside marriage is perverted and is part of what is ruining civilization.
And I know you did not use the word natural but eveytime I point out teh evils of sex outside marriage some liberal usually claims it's natural and thus not perverted.
@1tryingtoimprove "Any sex outside marriage is perverted and is part of what is ruining civilization." That's your opinion. If you wan't choose to have sex only in the context of marriage, all the power to you. However, you have absolutely no right to tell other people they can't. "liberal usually claims it's natural and thus not perverted."To claim that someone is inherently right of wrong because it is natural or unnatural is a fallacious argument.
@ryan84160 People are actually destroying themselves with sexuality outside of marriage and now they are indoctrinating ids into it in public school.
I havbe every right to be against them enforcing their Gaytheist religion onto captive public school children especially since it is against the Constitution.
You are grasping at straws to claim Torah is barbaric for things never done, while supporting true barbarism like giving kids aids by teaching them to have the sex that causes it.
@1tryingtoimprove Sex ed is against the constitution ? That's news to me.
How do you know that things have never been done ?
There are other instances in the Torah where god actually commands his followers to commit genocide and God himself kills every first born Egyptian child. Did this not happen ?
You are right when say that Islam is not a religion of peace, but neither is Judiasm. They are both disgusting religions and are a disgrace to humanity.
@ryan84160 So who me where in the Constitution it says that public school funded by the government should exist at all let along be teaching S&M and anal sex in classrooms.
So You have a problem with what G-d said and did which which you don't even have an proof for because unless you believe in G-d non of those things ever happened.
You can't pic and choose to believe certain parts of Torah like the genocide and then refuse to believe G-d said to do it.
@1tryingtoimprove "So who me where in the Constitution it says that public school funded by the government should exist at all let along be teaching S&M and anal sex in classrooms." I never said that the constitution said it did and I couldn't care less. However,I do know that one of the founders of the U.S thought public education was a great idea. How about you show me one single scrap of evidence to support your claim that public schools are teaching S&M.
@ryan84160 So how can you demand that the public schools teach anything about sex at all when you agree that they are not even Constitutional in the first place?
Parent furor at bawdy sex ed
City’s eye opening lessons
By SUSAN EDELMAN
Last Updated: 8:03 AM, October 24, 2011
Read more: use 3 w's then nypost (dot) com slash p slash news slash local slash parent_furor_at_bawdy_sex_ed_ then all of the following numbers and symbols hdtJZVpYrFFtTZeVKMbGvN#ixzz1eGLZsSIW
@1tryingtoimprove "So how can you demand that the public schools teach anything about sex at all when you agree that they are not even Constitutional in the first place?" I agreed what is not constitutional ? Public schools ? I don't follow.
@ryan84160 Re Public schools: What did you agree with?
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government the right to decide what people are or are not taught and the Public Schools are these days nothing more then a massive Ponzi Scheme promoting only the radical atheist NAZILIB antisemitic anti Constitutional agenda.
@ryan84160 Also tell that to the Islamics in the West Bank and Gaza (reall Judea and Sumeria) who will never stop til. they have 'pushed Israel into the Sea' and keep saying they want no Israel to exist at all.
@ryan84160 So You have a problem with what G-d said so take it up with G-d.
If G-d does not exist then there was no genocide.
---You are right when say that Islam is not a religion of peace, but neither is Judiasm. They are both disgusting religions and are a disgrace to humanity.---
Radical atheism is infinitely worse and you can't show anything not peaceful in Judiasm.
The most peaceful neighborhoods in the world, are those of Torah following Jews.
@1tryingtoimprove Of course I don't believe that God ordered anyone to commit genocide, but you do.
"Radical atheism is infinitely worse and you can't show anything not peaceful in Judiasm." You are kidding right ? have you ever read your own Goddamned religious text ? It is FILLED with violence,death and genocide and most of it is ordered by God himself.
@ryan84160 If G-d said to do it then your problem with with G-d not with those who follow him.
If G-d never ordered Genocide then the Torah is not true and it never happened.
If it never happened then Torah cannot be barbaric for talking about something that never happened that never took place thousands of years ago anyway.
Your religion on the other hand is demanding and causing it NOW.
@1tryingtoimprove "If G-d never ordered Genocide then the Torah is not true and it never happened." Correct.
"If it never happened then Torah cannot be barbaric for talking about something that never happened that never took place thousands of years ago anyway." I think there is some evidence to suggest that some minor wars did actually happen during this time, but that is kin of besides the point.
@ryan84160 Some minor wars that 'may' have happened is far from any proof that Jews following Torah committed genocide.
And how it besides the point?
You claimed the Torah was evil for being genocidal which it can't be, if it never happened.
That would be like saying Hollywood is trying to make dragons extinct, because they show made up movies with knights and others, fighting to kill them off.
@ryan84160 Even if nothing at all happened that doesn't mean the Torah is not barbaric. A movie or a novel can not be violent or barbaric. ---
Yes it does mean that it is not barbaric because if it taught what you claim then Jews would be going out and doing it and the more G-d fearing and Torah following they were the more they'd be doing it. Just the opposite is true.
And if you really believe no one should be taught that then how come you are a liberal siding with all the other liberals.
Even if nothing at all happened that doesn't mean the Torah is not barbaric. A movie or a novel can not be violent or barbaric. What is worse,however, is that the Torah does not simply depict violence,barbarity and genocide. It teaches people these were moral things to do. No one should be taught that murder and genocide are things that should be admired, especially not children.
@ryan84160 If you were really against barbarism and not teaching it, you'd be demanding that all public schools as well as all unions be shut down and outlawed and that all free speech be severely curtailed and you would not be so proud of using words that are so often used to promote violence and that never do anything good for anyone that you just said you are proud of using.
@1tryingtoimprove "The same Constitution that allowed it provided ways to abolish it which is what it did." I agree. I said before that I think the U.S constitution is one of the best and most important documents ever written in human history, but that definitely does not mean that it is perfect and can never ever be questioned. The people that wrote it were human from a particular time in history. Things change with time and sometime humans get things wrong ?
@1tryingtoimprove "So things change but not something that came from G-d it's exactly the same now as it was when G-d gave it to Moses." I don't understand what mosaic law has to do with the U.S constitution.
@1tryingtoimprove We can teach children that the only way to avoid head injury from bike riding is to not ride bikes at all. I think a much better approach would be to teach them about head injuries and that wearing a helmet will reduce the risk of becoming injured.
@1tryingtoimprove The constitution does not directly say they are property, but many of the people that wrote it owned slaves and the constitution did not prohibit this. "It said that All men are created equal." And then it was directly contradicted by the part that said blacks only equaled a fraction of a human being.
"Suffering and rights are two different issues." That's why I said I said I did't believe in animal rights per se.
@ryan84160 The legislation that said blacks were 4/5's was not part of the constitution.
And no killing kids is not in the Torah because Torah is also the Gemara which you now nothing about and what you 'think' it says is not what the law is.
Society does not get to decide for me what is suffering or not, the Constitution forbids it where it says congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibit the fee exercise thereof..
@1tryingtoimprove Actually it was 3/5s humans and YES it was in the constitution along with other articles that protected slave owners and the institution of slavery.
@1tryingtoimprove If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard."Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.You must purge the evil from among you.
@ryan84160 ---If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son etc...---
When was this to happen on what day at what time?
What was called 'rebellious'?
You have no clue because you only read the headline and never studied the Oral Torah that explains the details which were so specific that it says it never actually happened.
And since you want to claim that just having the idea in there is supposedly just as evil as doing it, then atheists are far more evil for demanding death, millions of times.
@1tryingtoimprove So it is justified because the oral tradition put some restrictions on it? It's also dangerous because Christians don't have an oral tradition.
When did I claim that having the idea in there is just as evil as actually doing it ? I would never say such a thing. Actually doing it would be infinitely worse.
@ryan84160 You just contradicted yourself. You complain that something is 'not justified' just because it;s there even with some many restrictions that it never happens at all, then you falsly claim you supposedly are not against it just because the idea in in there even without it ever being done.
@1tryingtoimprove "You just contradicted yourself. You complain that something is 'not justified' just because it;s there even with some many restrictions that it never happens at all, then you falsly claim you supposedly are not against it just because the idea in in there even without it ever being done." How is that a contradiction ? First of all, if there are so many restrictions that is never happend, why is it even in there?
The gays. You forgot about killing the gays. Oh and the discrimination against handicapped people.
sox010 1 month ago
And Torah never said to kill someone just for saying hes gay.
It says kill someone who HAS gay sex ONLY if he were warned within 3 seconds of committing the actual act and ONLY is he were seen doing it by two witnesses who themselves are killed if they swore falsely and the one they falsely accused goes free and obviously does not get executed.
These standards of proof and trial (and others as well) made executions (For all categories, put together) quite rare (fewer then once in 70 years).
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
"And Torah never said to kill someone just for saying hes gay."
No, it says to kill somebody for BEING gay which is what I also said. Are you endorsing the murder of homosexuals?
Also, 2 witnessess? So people of ancient times were surveyed by pairs of perverted voyeurs in the hope they would catch someone having consensual sex in the privacy of their homes?
Stop making crap up and accept how atrocious the book is. After all, if you thought it was a good book you wouldn't take exception to it
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : Yeah there were so many 'perverted voyeurs' that they only caught one person in more then 70 years.
And I don't take exception to Torah I take exception to your lies about it.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@nedwergs "Look here Thol combe - you've got it wrong - God is Merciful - Most Merciful He is - He keeps in mind our best interest."
Aaaand you say this in spite of everything not only in the bible and everything reflected in reality? On some level you need to be aware that what you just said to me is entirely untrue but you are compelled to say it anyway.
How can somebody endorse the beating of slaves and be most merciful at the same time?
ProcInc 8 months ago
@ProcInc What absurd, atrocious, ridiculous, bigoted and sadistic laws are you talking about?
Because none of those exist in Torah and I have utterly refuted all who have tried to pove to me there were such things.
And if you are so concerned about people 'getting beaten' why do you promote the radical Atheist religion which is not just pro beating but pro murder.
Continued next post....
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "What absurd, atrocious, ridiculous, bigoted and sadistic laws are you talking about?"
absurd such as teaching that eating shellfish is an abomination worthy of damnation, atrocious such as the glory of total genocide of neighbouring races, bigoted such as the slaughter of people just for being gay or even a disobedient child or disallowing the disabled from entering temples, sadistic such as taking slaves and driving a spike through their ear as a sign of them being property
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : What makes you think you are qualified to decide not eating shellfish is 'absurd' just because you want to eat it?
And What "total genocide' are you talking about?
And quote the chapter and verse that says that someone who says he's gay is instantly slaughtered just for saying that.
And nowhere does it say that the disabled may not enter any temples.
And the slave who is sent away with riches and rejects it and says he wants to stay gets a mark to show he wanted to stay
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "What makes you think you are qualified to decide not eating shellfish is 'absurd' just because you want to eat it?"
What kind of a ridiculous question is that? One may as well ask what makes you think you are qualified to eat anything edible? If one wants to claim that eating a specific edible (and nutritious) food is an abomination they would be required to back up why. But you can't back it up because it's a silly rule.
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : Claiming it's 'silly' is only your opinion.
Your claim that it's 'silly' is not any kind of 'scientific' fact' that you have an unbiased proof for.
You are just looking for excuses to pass your anti Torah biased judgement on it without an actual valid reason.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Your claim that it's 'silly' is not any kind of 'scientific' fact' that you have an unbiased proof for."
The unbiased proof comes form the fact that shellfish and pork is a staple to many people and it is a perfectly healthy and nutritious foodstuff.
It is far healthier and more sanitary than some of the recipies in your silly fables such as the cake cooked with human excrement for fuel (Ezekiel 4:12)
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : The silly fables are the ones you are spewing all over the place and what is clean or unclean is a spiritual cleanliness not physical and we see the difference in my factual posts and your lies full of unclean falsehoods and personal insults in place of facts.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@ProcInc : I said that these liberals wee antisemites and you tried to counter it by claiming no it's the Christians who are the antisemites so I did not lie you are the liar in everything you claimed about me and about Torah.
How about our absolute and blatant lie that Torah supposedly said to kill someone for 'being' gay which you said more then once, even AFTER I corrected you on it.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "How about our absolute and blatant lie that Torah supposedly said to kill someone for 'being' gay which you said more then once, even AFTER I corrected you on it."
I don't understand your weird fixation on believing you corrected this. I said that The Torah commands murder for somebody for being gay (and that includes making love) you tried to spin me to saying I only meant a person "saying" they're gay and then confirmed my claim that a truly gay person is killed
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : You are contradicting yourself once again and trying to spin your way out of your antisemitic lie.
First of all you cannot prove Torah commends murder for anything in any case.
Second you said just for 'BEING' gay and 'BEING' is separate from any act of DOING anything look it up mr 'dictionary'.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tryingtoimprove "First of all you cannot prove Torah commends murder for anything in any case"
Wrong. You gave cases yourself of people being murdered. Such as the example I allude to below
"Second you said just for 'BEING' gay and 'BEING' is separate from any act of DOING anything look it up mr 'dictionary""
Okay, let's accept that. Do you believe that a man should be murdered if he is a non-celibate homosexual?
ProcInc 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "I said that these liberals wee antisemites and you tried to counter it by claiming no it's the Christians who are the antisemites"
This makes no sense either. First of all there are such thing as Christian liberals so one can not dichtomise the two.
Second of all the Wall Street Protest is no antisemitic in nature. I have no doubt that there are antisemites within in the protest just as there are those who fully embrace the jewish people and even jewish people themselves
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc: Everything I said makes sense to someone with an intelligence. But since you are a brainwashed liberal I see why you can't understand simple facts.
A true Christian would by definition be a conservative so no they cannot be both unless they are onl pretending to follow Christianity which the White Aryans and many other liberals, do.
Second all the false blame and lies about 'the bankers' is nothing but a codeword for 'Jews' and everyone knows it.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "A true Christian would by definition be a conservative"
Haha right. I forget which part of the bible says that. I guess Jesus wasn't a Christian then what with all his liberal sentiments about distribution of wealth and his offering of free healthcare.
"'the bankers' is nothing but a codeword for 'Jews' and everyone knows it."
I have to ask at this point. Do you believe that working class America has no cause for economic grievances?
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : Haha yourself, the Bible does not talk in those terms as if you didn't know that.
And Jesus never said anything like we should support theft and forced communism, that liberals want.
Yeas the working class has legitimate grievances but nit against 'the bankers' but against their liberal leaders who caused all the problems and lied about 'the bankers'.
Roll back anti business legislation to what it was in the early 1800's (other then child labor and slavery laws) .
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tryingtoimprove "Jesus never said anything like we should support theft and forced communism, that liberals want."
Jesus did say if a man steals your cloak give him your cloak as well. He also said that anybody who did not give up all their possessions could not be his disciple.
That sounds an awful lot similar to what you accuse of being liberal sentiments
ProcInc 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove
"And What "total genocide' are you talking about?"
Your sacred fables rejoice in the stories of the extermination of tribes such as the Amalekites or the Jebusites.
"And quote the chapter and verse that says that someone who says he's gay is instantly slaughtered just for saying that."
Again, I said being gay. Not saying he is. You are apparently still endorsing the slaughter of gay people since you aren't taking that point at face value
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc: Prove it's 'fables' if it's 'fables' then the slaughter never happened so ou are attacing Torah for something that never even happened. Since when can fables predict the future as Torah did when the Bibles codes predicted IN ADVANCE the assassination of Yitschok Rabin .
And you said Torah said to kill someone for 'being' (whatever that means) gay and you cannot back that up.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "prove it's 'fables' if it's 'fables' then the slaughter never happened so ou are attacing Torah for something that never even happened."
We know it is fables based on the discoveries on archaeology of the time and the sheer absurdity of many of the campaign's clearly sensationalised claims (Such as the sound of a horn tearing a wall down).
At any rate although we can take solace in them not being true many think they are and think it's wonderful somehow
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : What 'archeology' proves it fables?
The fables are your false claims here.
Where is your poof that G-d could not make the wall fall down from the sound?
During WW2 the Japanese were working on sound weapons that were theorized to be able to do things like that.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "What 'archeology' proves it fables?"
For example there is evidence demonstrating that a mass Exodus from Egypt to the Middle East occurred when it was suggested it should have.
"Where is your poof that G-d could not make the wall fall down from the sound?"
You are saying the burden of proof is on the one skeptical that magic exists? really? How old are you?
So the Japanese was working on such technology? obviously they quickly scrapped the idea that a horn would do it
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc: So if the evidence proves it happened then how does that prove it's 'fables'?
I am the one skeptical in magic you are the one supporting it since you are the one that brought it up.
And the Japanese wee not advanced enough to do it in the time they had.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "So if the evidence proves it happened then how does that prove it's 'fables'?"
Because it was a typo. I meant to say there is no evidence.
"I am the one skeptical in magic you are the one supporting it since you are the one that brought it up."
Ah okay, so you don't believe a horn blew down the wall either. At least that's progress.
"And the Japanese wee not advanced enough."
you saying those who hadn't yet leavened bread were advanced enough...
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc The evidence exists it's in Egypt and the city were its buried is not allowed by the government to by viewed by anyone who would use it to prove any Jewish claims.
I never said I did not believe the hon brought the wall down I said I was skeptical about the magic you said you believed in.
Those who had leavened bread could have had the right size and tone etc.. to do it because G-d told them how.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "The evidence exists it's in Egypt and the city were its buried is not allowed by the government to by viewed by anyone who would use it to prove any Jewish claims."
How can you claim the evidence exists and simply has not been viewed by anybody? How would anybody know then? Besides, evidence should be scattered every between Egypt and the Middle East and it isn't.
"the magic you said you believed in."
The magic I said I believed in hey? tut tut.
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : Because some have snuck out some videos of some of the evidence such as Hebrew script written on a wall with something to the effect of a prayer that the sons of Jacob be feed from their captivity.
Just because you say the evidence should be scattered and you haven't seen it doe snot prove it couldn't have happened.
Yeah you started talking about magic so you must be the one believing in it since I never said anything about it.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Just because you say the evidence should be scattered and you haven't seen it doe snot prove it couldn't have happened."
But nobody has seen it and not for want of looking. There have been plenty of hoaxes (some of which were very blatant to the extent we can assume they were only made for publicity) but in centuries of passionate searching there is no evidence whatsoever that what should be an archaeologically bountiful historical event came out with bupkiss
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc I just told you that some have seen it and even if they hadn't it still would not be 'proof' that that it couldn't have happened.
What evidence should there be anyway? 3000 year old footprints still in the dessert somewhere?
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
"I just told you that some have seen it "
I know you *said* that but it isn't true.
And while absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence the sheer amount of evidence that SHOULD have been found related coupled with the amount of time spent looking makes total lack of evidence incredibly suspect
"What evidence should there be anyway?"
The same evidence we expect of any long and slow migration. Remember the Exodus was meant to take forty years yet was a relatively short journey.
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc So now you are calling me a liar.
So exactly what is that evidence?
Yoiu cannot go out and find any evidence of any wagon trains that went from th east of America to the west still laying on the ground either.
Does that prove it never happened?
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "You cannot go out and find any evidence of any wagon trains that went from th east of America to the west still laying on the ground either."
Actually in rare cases you can. Aside from that there are the remains of settlements, various markings by pioneers and the unfair advantage of first hand accounts.
The evidence is quite abundant which is why if we apply the same standard of proof we ascribe to settlement of the American West to the Biblical Exodus, the Exodus fails
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc Th evidence is far from 'abundant' and that is with settlements like buildings and only from 150 years or so ago.
NOT from 3000 years ago when they had only tents and no permament buildings.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Th evidence is far from 'abundant' and that is with settlements like buildings and only from 150 years or so ago."
Wrong again. You could even go to museums and look for yourself at the multitude of artifacts of the American settlement. There are even photographs.
We can find artifacts 9000 to 40,000 years old and most of those are in places equally hostile to artifacts. There was simply no biblical Exodus and all serious historians accept this
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc wasn't wrong the fist time so I can't be 'wrong again'.
That makes you the wrong one...again.
I specifically said 'laying on the ground' not in museums because what is in museums has already been picked up from the ground and is not there still on the ground for the next person to 'find'.
And you cannot prove that anything ELSE found is '40.000 ears' old since no one can go back to time to see anything existing before G-d said it did.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "I specifically said 'laying on the ground' not in museums because what is in museums has already been picked up from the ground and is not there still on the ground for the next person to 'find'."
I also pointed out there are artifacts still fount out there. The artifacts in museums were found on the ground...meaning they were evidence found on the ground. It's quite funny you tried to claim that nullifies them as evidence actually.
It's quite a naive argument
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : even you admitted that the evidence still laying on the ground was only in certain places under certain circumstances and ou totally ignoed the fact that Jews built nothing permanemnt in the dessert to be found' later. Also I never said being in a museum nullfiies them as evidence.
I just pointed out that there was no one in the dessert for 3000 picking up things to preserve in museums so whoever too it over that period as scavengers and the like won't have it on display now.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "even you admitted that the evidence still laying on the ground was only in certain places under certain circumstances"
The circumstance being that they had not already been found.
The fact remains that the American Settlement has adundant evidence and the Biblical Exodus has no evidence at all.
Also, it is spelt desert, not dessert. Dessert is the sweet stuff you eat after dinner
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : Like I said just because you haven't found it does not mean they were not there.
You cannot even specify what evidence there should be and you cannot in any exact and specific way, even define it.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Like I said just because you haven't found it does not mean they were not there."
It certainly means that there is no reason to pretend that they were. You seem to misunderstand the concept of "Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence". It isn't a rhetorical device that allows people to believe in things for which there is no evidence. It is more complicated than that. The thing is there is no evidence when there *should be* not that there is simply no evidence
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc: No there should NOT be the evidence that you yourself can't even define, that is the point.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@ProcInc Also when there are other proofs for Torah (like it's singular ability to predict the future such that people were actually warned AHEAD of TIME and not after the fact as Moby Dick does) then one incident that supposedly does not have supposed 'necessary' proof is no evidence whatsoever, that the event couldn't have happened.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
You are just being silly and repeating debunked arguments now. I don't think continuing a conversation with a religiously fanatic 13 year old is going to be very intellectually stimulating.
I on'y feel bad for you for your lack of education and insight into both complex and simple issues
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc The debunked arguments are all yours and all you can do in typical liberal fashion is rant and rave after having been exposed as the silly liar you are.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove You're quite a funny person when your hatred isn't taken to heart
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc You are ling about my beliefs RE homosexuals as well and anyone who looks through the posts, can SEE I never said to kill someone just for being gay.
And you are the name calling liar espousing antisemitic hatred. not me.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "anyone who looks through the posts, can SEE I never said to kill someone just for being gay." actually you did as you say here
"It says kill someone who HAS gay sex ONLY if he were warned within 3 seconds of committing the actual act and ONLY is he were seen doing it by two witnesses"
You also lied in since there is no 3 second warning (what would the warning be against?) and the concept of witnesses is silly.
Quote one antisemitic comment I have made
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : So now you put you lies on display LMAO
Killing someone for doing an ACT is not killing them for BEING something.
A person who lsuts after other men but does nothing about is gay a heterosexual who fornicates with another man could with warning and proper witnesses be killed for doing the act
And prove I lied about the warning liar.
And it would be against DOING the ACT.
You really should learn basic English before attempting to argue with adults.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Killing someone for doing an ACT is not killing them for BEING something"
It is a deterrent against them being what they are.
"And prove I lied about the warning liar"
It isn't in the Torah, anywhere. In fact not even the term "3 seconds" appears anywhere.
Even applying your redefinition, you believe that non celibate homosexuals should be murdered. I on the other hand believe murder is wrong and it is atrocious of you to endorse it
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : A deterrent is not the same as 'killing them for BEING. Your lie still stands as the lie it is.
And it is supposed to be deterrent for aberrant and evil behavior which even the Psychiatric profession used to say was a disorder, until the gay mafia forced them to change it.
And tell me how much Torah you ever studied to no what is in it or not?
Are you claiming you studied all of Torah including all the Oral Torah which Moses got along with the written Torah?
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "And it is supposed to be deterrent for aberrant and evil behavior which even the Psychiatric profession used to say was a disorder, until the gay mafia forced them to change it."
Haha wow...the gay mafia hey?
So let's review. You endorse the murder of noncelibate homosexuals.
You do so because the "psychatric profession" says it was until they were forced by....(dun dun DUN!) the Gay Mafia...
Am I right in saying that you endorse the murder of noncelibate gays? yes or no?
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : So you want gay sex which spreads aid so you endorse the murder of gays.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tryingtoimprove "So you want gay sex which spreads aid so you endorse the murder of gays."
That's a bit like saying you want heterosexual sex which spreads aids so you only want gays to live...
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc Lying that Torah endorses 'murder; is antisemitic.
Lying that it's 'fables' is antisemitic.
Oh sorry, you wanted only one. LOL
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Lying that Torah endorses 'murder; is antisemitic."
It isn't a lie because it's there in black and white but even if it wasn't true it isn't antisemitic because it is opposition to archaic practices and beliefs. Certainly modern Jewish people don't endorse these sick practises and one would require speaking about them as a whole to do so anyway.
I oppose religion because it breeds twisted people like you on occasion, not all religious followers
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc Where doe Torah say 'go murder' in those words, liar.
You LOVE murder claiming you are supposedly against it just another lie on your part.
If you were against murder you would be against sick practices of the indoctrination of children into the gay lifestyle that spreads aids and kills them as well as so many other evils of the liberal religions like all the animal rights wackos who endorse murder of anyone (and their friends/ families too) they accuse of 'abusing' animals.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tryingtoimprove "Where doe Torah say 'go murder' in those words, liar."
Well first of all the Torah isn't originally in English. Second of all it does say to Kill (specifically by stoning). At which point I am rather disinterested in which synonym is used. Whether somebody is killed, murdered or stoned to death matters little to them. They are dead by the violent hand of another in any case
ProcInc 4 months ago
"If you were against murder you would be against sick practices of the indoctrination of children into the gay lifestyle"
I think you are confusing encouraging tolerance with indoctrinating into something. If more people were taught to tolerate there would be less people murdering or beating homosexuals for fun.
Furthermore heterosexuality also spreads the HIV virus. It doesn't matter which orientation you are, it matters if you have the virus. Schools teach HIV awareness for this reason
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc No I am not confusing tolerance with anything else.
No tolerance it taught for Religious Jews who are bashed by those like you who pretend to care about 'tolerance' .
This is nothing but sick perverted indoctrination and you don't GET 'the virus' unless you do ACTs like the one that you are promoting.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
"No tolerance it taught for Religious Jews who are bashed by those like you who pretend to care about 'tolerance' "
Not so, tolerance for all religion is encouraged. Except of course in schools with a powerful religion lobby that believes only Christianity should be acknowledged.
You would of course agree that promoting tolerance of Judaism is not forcing students to convert to Judaism. Yet that is what you are trying to argue for homosexuality. One can not convert to homosexuality anyway
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc That is another lie. you cannot show one public school class where the values of Torah ate taught the same way that the Gaytheist religion is.
Where is any proof that homosexuality cannot be taught?
All pleasure is in the mind and a mind can be brainwashed.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "you cannot show one public school class where the values of Torah ate taught the same way that the Gaytheist religion is."
"Gaytheist religion?" what fresh hilarity is this haha.
"Where is any proof that homosexuality cannot be taught?"
Sexuality is a complex integration genetic, chemical and neurological factors. You can't change their sexuality by teaching them tolerance any more than you can persuade them to grow a sixth finger
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : You are the funny one.
Rabbis and some Christian ministers have changed people from gay to straight and they now live extremely happy hetero sexual lives.
The Gaytheist religion has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance it is hatred pure and simple.
Tolerance would be for Jews as well complete with how to out on Tephillin and how to Keep Shabbos to be anything equal to the supposed (fake) 'tolerance' for gays taught in public schools.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Rabbis and some Christian ministers have changed people from gay to straight and they now live extremely happy hetero sexual lives."
The true story behind those conversions is much darker than the story you bought. I won't go into that but there are plenty of videos on this site alone.
"the supposed (fake) 'tolerance' for gays taught in public schools."
Perhaps instead of fake tolerance for gays we should endorse genuine tolerance for gays in that case.
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : The story is not so dark that is just propaganda.
REAL tolerance would be what
I said it was and exactly HOW it would include Religious Judiasm, and the gay groups and other liberals would NEVER tolerate REAL tolerance because it's against their religion.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "you don't GET 'the virus' unless you do ACTs like the one that you are promoting."
HIV can be transmitted in a number of other ways not just sexual acts.
Besides, both homosexual and heterosexual acts of relations transmit the HIV virus.
All because you have an unfounded hatred for people of a different sexual orientation is no reason to take away their rights or to expose them to hatred of other, more violent people by discouraging tolerance of them
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc: I never said it can't be gotten in other ways but gay sex is the most usual and MAJOR way, by far.
Jewish couples in a devoutly religious marriage are not spreading it.
You are the one with the unfounded hatred.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "jewish couples in a devoutly religious marriage are not spreading it."
Well, any monogomous relationship would curb the spread of HIV, especially if neither the bride nor groom have virus.
If two men both clear of HIV were to get married they wouldn't spread the disease either. It would be pathologically impossible
Conversely if a devoutly religious Jewish man with HIV married a devoutly religious Jewish woman without HIV then she would have HIV spread to her.
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc Not true.
Two gay people who have it would still spread it in a car accident where their blood spill into the cut of someone else or in a transfusion.
The promotion of the gay lifestyle is by it very essence anti monogamy anyway .
Trying to make the gay population monogamous....... ROFL
And a devoutly religious man would not have HIV since he would not be doing anything to GET it unless it was from one of those transfusions where the blood was not screened properly.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Two gay people who have it would still spread it in a car accident where their blood spill into the cut of someone else or in a transfusion."
But the same thing could happen to a heterosexual Jewish couple.
"And a devoutly religious man would not have HIV since he would not be doing anything to GET it"
Unless of course his wife or partner was HIV positive. Or if he was in the car accident you mentioned earlier
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc I already mentioned those possibilities but they are quite rare and I have never heard of a single instance of it happening to a properly observant devoutly Chassidic Jew .
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove " I already mentioned those possibilities but they are quite rare and I have never heard of a single instance of it happening to a properly observant devoutly Chassidic Jew ."
So if the other possibilities are rare then you must have no problem with accepting two HIV negative men engaging in a relationship. Because aside from your hypothetical 'freak HIV laced car accident' there is no chance of the virus being spread is there?
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc : The problem with promoting the gay lifestyle is that it will not stay monogamous or aids free and the society that promotes it is taking away the rights of G-d fearing people and promotions liberal protected groups over the groups that are not politically correct.
There is a reason why G-d said it was evil and lot just because does not want people to be happy.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Trying to make the gay population monogamous....... ROFL"
Many people certainly are trying that and it isn't the gay people who are ruining it but people like you setting up legislation to prevent it.
For example, you said yourself that if people are happily married it curbs the spread of HIV. In which case why prevent gay people getting married? It would at least *encourage* the pursuit of monogamy would it not?
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc
If we can take away peoples right to eat or smoke what the want then we can do it to gay as well unless of course you want to admit that all the garbage about banning transfats and smoking in bars etc... is nothing but a liberal expression of hatred for peoples right to do business and run their own lives..
And I am not advocating doing it to gays Torahs laws in that areas only apply when G-d rebuilds the Temple and it doesn't and according to you, that never will happen.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
"If we can take away peoples right to eat or smoke what the want then we can do it to gay as well unless of course you want to admit that all the garbage about banning transfats and smoking in bars etc... is nothing but a liberal expression of hatred for peoples right to do business and run their own lives.."
Fine let's grant that. Banning gay people from having sex is just like banning transfats and smoking; nothing but a liberal expression of hatred for people's rights. Agreed?
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc That would be true today in America
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "That would be true today in America"
Great! So you acknowledge that it would be against your principles to discriminate against gay people.
"So you are now agreeing that liberalism is evil and takes away peoples rights?"
As I have always said, any system that takes away people's fundamental rights is to be opposed. Just as any system that advocates special rights for one group of interest.
If you want to make that a strawman of 'liberalism' fine with me.
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc and forcing me to change My definition of marriage is not mr discriminating against gays its the other way around.
No one is stopping them from having in a gay church any ceremony they want and calling it whatever they want.
But it is my right to hire who I want or to not hire who I don't want to for ANY reason and it is no one elses business, who I hire or how much me and the employee agree he will be paid for his work.
And my taxes must not go to those my religion says not to support
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Family guy is paedophillia ? I was not aware of this. Anyway, I think t would be irresponsible for a parent to let young children watch family guy. However, there is a huge difference, one is comedy and the other is being taught that it is the the perfect moral code written by a perfectly moral being. Is it appropriate to teach children that wizards and witches are to be stoned to death ? or that if they misbehave they deserve death ?
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 : The whole show is not not all about pedophilia but they did promote it, in at least 2 episodes.
So called 'comedy' that people watch over and over again because the enjoy it so much can be a far more powerful tool for indoctrination then anything the kids are sitting and learning in an class.
And this idea you seem to have that so man people were being stoned to death is absolutely wrong.
Like I said to Procinc it did not happen more then once in 70 years.
Continued next post.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I don't know what episodes your are talking, but I am 99.999999999999999999% sure they were not "promoting" paedophillia but were making a joke. Parents shouldn't let young children watch family guy anyway.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 : I am talking about two episodes. In one Peter the father; does a nude dance in front of his daughter and her friends practically rubbing his behind, in her face.
In another he is supposedly drunk or otherwise impaired somehow and he goes into what he thinks is his wifes room to have sex but it turns out to be his son who then screams (you hear the sounds and don't actually see it, going on but they make sure you can tell) he does the same to his other son.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I haven't seen those episodes, but I would certainly say that is not appropriate for young children. However, there are many stories in the bible that are much worse than that and of course family guy is not being taught to children as a moral code.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160: Just a joke huh?
Well everything the racist father in All in the Family said was just a joke as well but liberals like you demanded it be taken off the air.
Lets see someone try and make a 'joke' about Christians having fun beating up a gay person on some show. You would not be able to get it on the air no matter how funny it was.
This garbage from Family Guy, is indoctrination DISGUISED as 'a joke' and it is not even disguised as a joke when taught in public schools.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I don't even know what all in the family is, but to say that family guy is liberal indoctrination is ridiculous. They make fun of just about every group on the planet including blacks and gays.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 No Family Guy does NOT make fun of gays the wa they do against those who believe in G-d.
Not one episode has EVER shown gas as child molesters like NAMBLA is.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tryingtoimprove "Not one episode has EVER shown gas as child molesters like NAMBLA is."
I hope that English is not your first language.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "And this idea you seem to have that so man people were being stoned to death is absolutely wrong." I didn't sayso so many were stoned to death.I don't care if it happened 0 times in all of history, what I care about is what the bible says and what it teaches. It is disgusting to teach your children that homosexuals deserve to be stoned or that they deserve to be stoned if they misbehave. What kind of a parent would teach this to a small child ?
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160: So you liberal atheists hate G-d only because he cramps your perverted lifestyle.
You want to be able to force our violence and perversions onto everyone else, and G-d won't let you.
Tsk tsk.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove our violence ?? ahah I think thats correct, your religions are violent.
How does God cramp my lifestyle ??? I do what I want without even so much as a thought about what this ancient story book character would think if he were real.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 My Y (and a few others lie the K key) key does not work so well.
Your religion is by far the most violent one.
ou want toi indoctrinate kids into the gay sexual culture and as long as people believe in G-d there will be opposition to the indoctrination.
And doing what you want EXACTLY. So if you want to bully someone smaller then you, you do it whether G-d likes it or not.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I wan't to indoctrinate children to be gay? Please take off your tinfoil hat again. First of all, I am not gay. Second, children should not be involved in any "sexual culture".
I like to bully people that are smaller than me? Where are you getting this shit from? You pulled this straight out of your asshole.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 So nopw you are trying to be a cyber bully with your vulgar curse word filled insults, while lying that you do not like to bully.
Way to prove me right so much better then I could have done myself, congratulations.
And if you are against gay sex being taught in schools prove it show me where you ever posted against it.
you can't because you are lying as usual.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tryingtoimprove Arguing and bullying are not the same thing.
"And if you are against gay sex being taught in schools prove it show me where you ever posted against it." Are you really this dense ? I could do the exact same thing to you. If you don't believe that all blacks should be executed show me where you ever posted against it. If you cant you I guess you are lying. Do you not see how fallacious this type of argument is ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160: More people are killed by liberal policies in public schools in America in a year then wee ever killed by the Jewish court, in 70 years.
Look at all the so called 'enlightened' and 'evolved' liberal atheists and all the violence and death they promote just in the fake phony fraudulent name of so called 'animal rights' where they demand that dog breeders be 'slowly tortured to death' along with all their friends and families as I have seen them say in posts all over the internet.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Killed by liberal policies ?? Take off your tinfoil hat.
I am a HUGE animal rights supporter and I have never heard anyone say anything like this, but if I did I would certainly condemn it because that is horrible and it would be much worse if they were teaching their children that people deserved to be tortured and murdered as the bible does.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160: You are a 'huge animal rights' supporter?
So you are by definition against the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution which either says or has an amendment that says, people are to be secure in their person and property which they cannot be when the government can come in and dictate to them how many cats they may own or anything else in the fake phony name of 'animal rights.
See 'eagle attacks wolf' video and see the comments demanding an entire country be nuked.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I shouldn't have said animal rights because I don't believe animals have rights in the same way that humans i have right. What I should have said is that I am a strong believer in animal welfare. I don't know what your getting at about the cats but I do not believe animals are "just property" that you can do with what you please.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 I believe we have a responsibility toward treating animals decently but nothing in the US Constitution gives government or anyone else, the right to come int9o someones private property and arrest them based on how they treat their animals.
ou can argue that ou might thin that is wrong but either we (in the USA) follow the Constitution or we allow government to do anything it wants like a dictatorship with no restrictions on it whatsoever without any Constitutional preventions.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I love the constitution of the USA, I think it is one of the most amazing documents every written in history, but it is far from perfect. The original constitution also considered black humans to be "just property". We can argue about weather it is write or wrong and we can also make it illegal for people to needlessly torture and harm animals. Animals are not just like other forms or property, they have a capacity suffer and they deserve to be protected.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 I recently heard from a friend who has a daughter who she had in a Jewish day school and the daughter was happy and eager to learn and respectful of her parents and friendly and could not pass a charity box without insisting on throwing some money in it.
She had financial problems and could no longer afford to keep her daughter in the Jewish school which could not afford to carry any more students for free without going bankrupt.
Continued
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@ryan84160 So she was forced to put her daughter into a public school and over the next year, the change was like night and day going to the exact opposite personality.
Now she is disrespectful toward elders cares nothing about helping other like the poor and is maladjusted and not very interested in learning anything.
And it's far from just her, this is the product of todays liberal atheist controlled public schools and why they all want to protest the fact that some people--- continued
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I actually agree that the public schools in your country are absolutely horrible, but what does this have to do with teaching Leviticus?
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 want to protest the fact that some people worked hard and became successful in life and why they want to kill them and steal their money instead of themselves working for it becoming successful themselves.
Liberalism promotes the most and worst and most extreme violent of any group or movement or religion in all of history by far.
Thr same liberals that are doing this are the same ones who started WW2 and worshiped their Fuhrer and they officially endorse the Wall street ones.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove take some lithium and take off your tin foil hat buddy. Who wants to kill people and steal their money ? I have never heard of this.
"Thr same liberals that are doing this are the same ones who started WW2 and worshiped their Fuhrer and they officially endorse the Wall street ones." What???? Liberals started WW2 and worship hitler ? you really need to stop listening to Alex Jones.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove What has any of this got to do with teaching Leviticus to Children? Why don't you actually adress the Leviticus issue istead of ignoring it and rambling on and on and on about how liberals worship Hitler and other crazy conspiracy theories.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 You are the one with the Tin foil hat believing in crazy conspiracies.
So now you admit that you don't care what Torah actually teaches.
All you care about are your twisted theoretical claims about what you falsely THINK it teaches. I DID address what it ACTUALLY teaches and you are ranting about 'disguSting teACHINGS' AND yet everything YOU liberals support caused nothing I can address this ore fully in about 24 hours.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Where did you adress the barbaric teachings in the torah ?? That's right you didn't. You accused me of being a liberal for some reason and then ranted about conspiracies and how horrible liberals are.
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 I pointed out thee are no 'barbaric teachings in Torah only barbaric liberals think there ae because they want to bash Torah so the can have the barbaric world THEY want.
Stories about evil and what not to do is not the same as making it 'funny' and 'enjoyable' to emulate as Family Guy does and it IS being taught as a moral code in public schools.
Now they are having ids go to stores to buy condoms and teaching them about anal sex in public schools.
1tryingtoimprove 4 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Oh no not condoms. We wouldn't want to teach kids about safe sex. If you believe that teaching kids to obey their parents or they deserve to be executed is not barbaric, I really hope that you do not have children.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 No you do not want to teach kid about safe sex because the ONLY 'safe sex' is abstinence which you are against teaching.
And it's those on your side who teach that ids should be executed just because their parents of friends breed dogs.
Oh no how horrible.
Suffering and rights are two different issues.
And show we where the Constitution ever said that Blacks were just property?
it never said that it said that All men are created equal.
You are making things up, as usual.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Abstinence isn't safe sex because it isn't even sex at all. It is correct that the the only way to keep the risk of unwanted consequences of having sex at 0 is by abstaining from sex. I am not opposed to teaching this at all, but I also think its wise to teach safe sex to them if they do end up having sex because most of them will regardless of what they are taught.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 So why don't schools teach kids how to fight if they 'might' have sex 'anyway' and so you thin they must be taught how to do it safely (which is impossible) many will for sure be forced into a fight sooner or later so why not teach them how to fight?
Why not teach them how to drive safely while drunk since many do that as well?
Bike riding is not in the same catagory as sex.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tryingtoimprove It's impossible to have sex sex ? That's news to me. I think teaching self defense to kids (especially girls)is a great idea.
"Why not teach them how to drive safely while drunk since many do that as well?" Driving while drunk is criminal and dangerous. A better suggestion would be, to teach kids how to drive safely and minimize the risk of getting into an accident which would include NOT driving while drunk.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Bike riding is not in the same catagory as sex." Really ? Says who? Did you make up the "categories" your self ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Bike riding is an innocent activity and children having sex is perverted and evil no matter how 'natural' they claim it is.
Bullying and beating other ids up is just as 'natural'.
3/5 clause was abolished by the 143th amendment and was only created as compromise to the southern states that never would have joined the union if they could not have representation based on how many slaves they had.
The same Constitution that allowed it provided ways to abolish it which is what it did.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "children having sex is perverted" That depends how you define a child. If it means younger than a teenager, I would agree with that. However, if it is used to mean anyone under the age of 18 or 21, I would completely disagree.
"Bullying and beating other ids up is just as 'natural'." I didn't even mention the word natural.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Any sex outside marriage is perverted and is part of what is ruining civilization.
And I know you did not use the word natural but eveytime I point out teh evils of sex outside marriage some liberal usually claims it's natural and thus not perverted.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "Any sex outside marriage is perverted and is part of what is ruining civilization." That's your opinion. If you wan't choose to have sex only in the context of marriage, all the power to you. However, you have absolutely no right to tell other people they can't. "liberal usually claims it's natural and thus not perverted."To claim that someone is inherently right of wrong because it is natural or unnatural is a fallacious argument.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 People are actually destroying themselves with sexuality outside of marriage and now they are indoctrinating ids into it in public school.
I havbe every right to be against them enforcing their Gaytheist religion onto captive public school children especially since it is against the Constitution.
You are grasping at straws to claim Torah is barbaric for things never done, while supporting true barbarism like giving kids aids by teaching them to have the sex that causes it.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Sex ed is against the constitution ? That's news to me.
How do you know that things have never been done ?
There are other instances in the Torah where god actually commands his followers to commit genocide and God himself kills every first born Egyptian child. Did this not happen ?
You are right when say that Islam is not a religion of peace, but neither is Judiasm. They are both disgusting religions and are a disgrace to humanity.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 So who me where in the Constitution it says that public school funded by the government should exist at all let along be teaching S&M and anal sex in classrooms.
So You have a problem with what G-d said and did which which you don't even have an proof for because unless you believe in G-d non of those things ever happened.
You can't pic and choose to believe certain parts of Torah like the genocide and then refuse to believe G-d said to do it.
Either it's true or its not.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "So who me where in the Constitution it says that public school funded by the government should exist at all let along be teaching S&M and anal sex in classrooms." I never said that the constitution said it did and I couldn't care less. However,I do know that one of the founders of the U.S thought public education was a great idea. How about you show me one single scrap of evidence to support your claim that public schools are teaching S&M.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 So how can you demand that the public schools teach anything about sex at all when you agree that they are not even Constitutional in the first place?
Parent furor at bawdy sex ed
City’s eye opening lessons
By SUSAN EDELMAN
Last Updated: 8:03 AM, October 24, 2011
Read more: use 3 w's then nypost (dot) com slash p slash news slash local slash parent_furor_at_bawdy_sex_ed_ then all of the following numbers and symbols hdtJZVpYrFFtTZeVKMbGvN#ixzz1eGLZsSIW
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "So how can you demand that the public schools teach anything about sex at all when you agree that they are not even Constitutional in the first place?" I agreed what is not constitutional ? Public schools ? I don't follow.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Re Public schools: What did you agree with?
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government the right to decide what people are or are not taught and the Public Schools are these days nothing more then a massive Ponzi Scheme promoting only the radical atheist NAZILIB antisemitic anti Constitutional agenda.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Also tell that to the Islamics in the West Bank and Gaza (reall Judea and Sumeria) who will never stop til. they have 'pushed Israel into the Sea' and keep saying they want no Israel to exist at all.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove I couldn't get that to work. If you want, you can try sending the link in a private message.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 So You have a problem with what G-d said so take it up with G-d.
If G-d does not exist then there was no genocide.
---You are right when say that Islam is not a religion of peace, but neither is Judiasm. They are both disgusting religions and are a disgrace to humanity.---
Radical atheism is infinitely worse and you can't show anything not peaceful in Judiasm.
The most peaceful neighborhoods in the world, are those of Torah following Jews.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Of course I don't believe that God ordered anyone to commit genocide, but you do.
"Radical atheism is infinitely worse and you can't show anything not peaceful in Judiasm." You are kidding right ? have you ever read your own Goddamned religious text ? It is FILLED with violence,death and genocide and most of it is ordered by God himself.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 If G-d said to do it then your problem with with G-d not with those who follow him.
If G-d never ordered Genocide then the Torah is not true and it never happened.
If it never happened then Torah cannot be barbaric for talking about something that never happened that never took place thousands of years ago anyway.
Your religion on the other hand is demanding and causing it NOW.
So yes it is infinitely worse.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "If G-d never ordered Genocide then the Torah is not true and it never happened." Correct.
"If it never happened then Torah cannot be barbaric for talking about something that never happened that never took place thousands of years ago anyway." I think there is some evidence to suggest that some minor wars did actually happen during this time, but that is kin of besides the point.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Some minor wars that 'may' have happened is far from any proof that Jews following Torah committed genocide.
And how it besides the point?
You claimed the Torah was evil for being genocidal which it can't be, if it never happened.
That would be like saying Hollywood is trying to make dragons extinct, because they show made up movies with knights and others, fighting to kill them off.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Even if nothing at all happened that doesn't mean the Torah is not barbaric. A movie or a novel can not be violent or barbaric. ---
Yes it does mean that it is not barbaric because if it taught what you claim then Jews would be going out and doing it and the more G-d fearing and Torah following they were the more they'd be doing it. Just the opposite is true.
And if you really believe no one should be taught that then how come you are a liberal siding with all the other liberals.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
Even if nothing at all happened that doesn't mean the Torah is not barbaric. A movie or a novel can not be violent or barbaric. What is worse,however, is that the Torah does not simply depict violence,barbarity and genocide. It teaches people these were moral things to do. No one should be taught that murder and genocide are things that should be admired, especially not children.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 If you were really against barbarism and not teaching it, you'd be demanding that all public schools as well as all unions be shut down and outlawed and that all free speech be severely curtailed and you would not be so proud of using words that are so often used to promote violence and that never do anything good for anyone that you just said you are proud of using.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@ryan84160 So pove he never met with white supremacists.
Mot having proof (yet) that they did is not the same as having proof they never did.
You never back up your claims all you ever do is demand proof but never provide any.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
---If you write a book and someone endorses it, that does not mean that you also endorse them. Are you honestly that dense ?--
It does if you never denounce them for endorsing it.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "The same Constitution that allowed it provided ways to abolish it which is what it did." I agree. I said before that I think the U.S constitution is one of the best and most important documents ever written in human history, but that definitely does not mean that it is perfect and can never ever be questioned. The people that wrote it were human from a particular time in history. Things change with time and sometime humans get things wrong ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 So things change but not something that came from G-d it's exactly the same now as it was when G-d gave it to Moses.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tryingtoimprove "So things change but not something that came from G-d it's exactly the same now as it was when G-d gave it to Moses." I don't understand what mosaic law has to do with the U.S constitution.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove We can teach children that the only way to avoid head injury from bike riding is to not ride bikes at all. I think a much better approach would be to teach them about head injuries and that wearing a helmet will reduce the risk of becoming injured.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove The constitution does not directly say they are property, but many of the people that wrote it owned slaves and the constitution did not prohibit this. "It said that All men are created equal." And then it was directly contradicted by the part that said blacks only equaled a fraction of a human being.
"Suffering and rights are two different issues." That's why I said I said I did't believe in animal rights per se.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 The legislation that said blacks were 4/5's was not part of the constitution.
And no killing kids is not in the Torah because Torah is also the Gemara which you now nothing about and what you 'think' it says is not what the law is.
Society does not get to decide for me what is suffering or not, the Constitution forbids it where it says congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibit the fee exercise thereof..
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove Actually it was 3/5s humans and YES it was in the constitution along with other articles that protected slave owners and the institution of slavery.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "And no killing kids is not in the Torah". Really ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard."Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.You must purge the evil from among you.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 ---If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son etc...---
When was this to happen on what day at what time?
What was called 'rebellious'?
You have no clue because you only read the headline and never studied the Oral Torah that explains the details which were so specific that it says it never actually happened.
And since you want to claim that just having the idea in there is supposedly just as evil as doing it, then atheists are far more evil for demanding death, millions of times.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove So it is justified because the oral tradition put some restrictions on it? It's also dangerous because Christians don't have an oral tradition.
When did I claim that having the idea in there is just as evil as actually doing it ? I would never say such a thing. Actually doing it would be infinitely worse.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 You just contradicted yourself. You complain that something is 'not justified' just because it;s there even with some many restrictions that it never happens at all, then you falsly claim you supposedly are not against it just because the idea in in there even without it ever being done.
Typical Atheist hypocrisy.
1tryingtoimprove 3 months ago
@1tryingtoimprove "You just contradicted yourself. You complain that something is 'not justified' just because it;s there even with some many restrictions that it never happens at all, then you falsly claim you supposedly are not against it just because the idea in in there even without it ever being done." How is that a contradiction ? First of all, if there are so many restrictions that is never happend, why is it even in there?
ryan84160 3 months ago