It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2008 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by pause4thought
Sheesh! 10 pages!?! Y'all just put up with me as I plow through...

Pause, you make a point here that goes to my reasoning of why even passages that appear to be clear need to be examined from time to time:

As to women not speaking in church it is a clear statement to the effect that the task of preaching has been appointed to men.

In the Jewish tradition, it was clear that women were not allowed to speak in Synagogue. When Paul wrote the verse you bring up, he was writing to a Church that practiced the Jewish customs. Women violating the customs of the time would have brought offense, something that Jesus took very seriously. Luke 17:1 is a good example:

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe [unto him], through whom they come!

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

So it is entirely plausible that Paul was explaining that the Church in question was to remain in their customs rather than causing offense. We have no such customs today, so there is no offense (in most churches I have attended anyway) in allowing women to fully participate.


posted on May, 17 2008 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Read on down in Matthew.
Jesus is talking about hierarchy. Sitting by the throne of Jesus means Great Honor!
Even a LOT of true believers will only be able to enter the Temple of God on certain occasions.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by Clearskies]

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by InterestedObserver

The fact that people ignore what you state, even repeatedly, is the biggest bane of the experience of posting on ATS. Especially when they not only ignore it, but accuse you of saying what you are, in reality, constantly making a point of not saying. That is what you have achieved here.

Whenever the word 'homosexual' has cropped up in the translation I use I have been adding square brackets and saying "[i.e. practising]". This was in order to avoid the possibility of anyone thinking it was the orientation, not the practise that was condemned as sinful in the Bible. I made this point unceasingly in previous threads.

I was getting tired of spoon-feeding the readers, and let up with this the last two times it occurred, I believe. is completely irresponsible for you to turn 'sodomites' into 'homosexuals'.

You have also misconstrued my remark earlier on this page. In quoting from an external source I thought I'd better just clarify - again using square brackets - that the English word used in the Bible Dictionary ('sodomy') to translate the Greek word corresponded to a different word in the quote from my own Bible ('homosexuality'). It was not my personal translation, so your accusation that I was somehow irresponsible ought to be withdrawn.

I do, however, concede that the translator's selection of 'homosexuals' in 1 Corinthians 6:9 requires constant clarification. To those who know and accept what the Bible teaches throughout - that sex outside male-female marriage is wrong - it is obvious that it is practise that is in view, not orientation.

The other point you make, InterestedObserver, has been comprehensibly refuted so many times on these threads I can only assume you hold to your doctrine through sheer bloody-mindedness or because you, as with the opening poster, have an agenda to promote.

Here we go again. (Do you really enjoy merry-go-rounds?)

You quote:

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Ezekiel 16:49-50

You then say:

Their sin was not homosexuality... Those are Jesus' own words, plain and simple.

(Ezekiel is, of course, in the Old Testament - these were not Jesus' words, if that was your meaning, but it really makes no difference.)

So what were the detestable things that are referred to that led to God's severest anger?

...Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions... and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude 7

You just keep on ignoring what the Bible actually says, such as this text. All the passage from Ezekiel shows is that the ungodly behaviour of Sodom and Gomorrah's citizens was seen in more ways than just homosexual sex.

Please spare me another circuit on the merry-go-round by trying to shift the ground yet again to 'it was homosexual rape, not consensual sex'. Just to save you the trip I'll quote from what I said on page 8:

The [O.T.] passage nowhere says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of rape. The angels were sent to destroy it because of the immorality and perversions (as is proved conclusively by the O.T. passage itself and by the teaching in Jude that both I and Conspiriology have mentioned). Only when they actually turned up to extract Lot and his family before the destruction occurred was there any hint of the issue of rape.

You are trying to twist the plain meaning of both O.T. and N.T. Scriptures to fit your own agenda.

Whether or not today's society regards homosexual sex as immoral the the Bible says the opposite.

Is it really asking too much to say 'Don't twist the Bible to justify a politically correct agenda?'

reply to post by marg6043

You referred to

...widely misinterpreted quotes in the bible more often than not to further religious agendas to promote modern persecution against homosexuals.

What has changed in modern times is the politically-correct agenda to say sex - heterosexual or homosexual - is not immoral as long as it is consensual. The shift has occurred because people use themselves and other people as the yardstick for morality. The Bible has always stated that sex outside male-female marriage is immorality from God's perspective, in whatever form.

The 'religious agenda', if you will, of the Bible is that all sex outside male-female marriage is the symptom of fallen human nature, which leaves people unable to control their passions and submit to God's moral Law. The reason this is in the Bible is that the eternal God is the judge of those he has made, and people have to chose whether to face him full of shame or accept his offer of blood-bought mercy and receive the power to live differently though the power of His Spirit.

I really do hope what you said here about furthering the persecution of homosexuals was not directed at true disciples of Christ or me personally. I have put myself out here and here to condemn such attitudes and behaviour outright.

If you haven't done so already, please take a few minutes to read those posts just to appreciate that Christ's true Church - consisting of sinners who have been truly born again across the denominations - welcomes those who have practiced homosexuality in the same way it welcomes those who have committed any other sin. The Gospel message is the same for everyone: 'Turn from your sin, believe the Gospel, and receive forgiveness and eternal life, as Christ promised'.

That is the message of the Bible. It always has been, is now, and always will be. Until Christ returns.

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Hi again. Obviously differences of opinion occur! We all answer to God personally for our words and actions, and so need to be conscientious when considering Bible interpretation. It's never good enough to rely on hearsay or someone else's opinion. That's why debate is healthy and worthwhile.

The issue that came up in passing, being a matter of how meetings are conducted, is less important than questions of sexual morality. I suppose it could be discussed in another thread. You might get a pretty hefty discussion going.

For what it's worth, I see your angle, but can't currently agree with it for this reason: while you regard this as a matter of Jewish customs, from my study (e.g. in 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, where the reasoning seems based on v.36, not something Jesus said) I regard it as a matter of God's design for order within churches.

I'll listen to debate, though!

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:08 PM
Ok, the last few pages have been something of a disappointment, as I was more interested in how the Ba'al rituals might have had an impact on Hebrew law. But they do bring up a good point.

Why are we so worried about this? Are any of us more than some label that indicates a sexual persuasion? I believe I am, and I would hope that others here believe they are more than a heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, whateversexual... I am heterosexual for that matter, but it is not all I am. I am so much more. Isn't everyone?

I looked up a passage to illustrate my point:

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Perhaps, since there will be no sex in that resurrection, we should be able to define ourselves as more than simply sexual fleshly beings. Perhaps, the preoccupation with sex is in itself a sin, and a barrier to life in Paradise.

Maybe that is also why the practices of false god worship (inspired by Satan, IMHO) are usually centered around sexual rituals. And maybe, just maybe, that's why the Torah was so strict regarding it. Focus on sex, and you focus on the flesh, not the spirit. Define yourself by sex, and you define yourself as fleshly, not as spiritual.

Don't get me wrong, I like a fun roll in the hay as much as the next guy, but believe it or not, sex is not the only thing on my mind.


posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by pause4thought
And hello to you, Pause, it's good to see you again as well.

As you said, the subject that was addressed is a bit off topic. I mentioned it only as an example of how much more there is in the Bible than the literal black symbols on white paper. Read my post directly above and you'll see another example, one that came to me as I read the debate between you and Neo.

I try to love all men as Jesus commanded me (us) to do. That includes gays, murderers, lepers, and even Democrats and the French.
If I show animosity for anyone, I am subject to be discounted when I get that chance to tell someone how much Jesus really loves them. That is something I do not want to happen. Let's see, there is another verse I can think of...

Matthew 5:43-48
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I think that speaks for itself.

Great thread overall, though I still want to hear more about the rituals...


posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Thanx for atleast one healthy post showing will to look into this conspiracy. Maybe Satan hates pedos and homos so he tries to get away with them through performing rapes on men women and children? And he has managed to make the whole Christian world to condemn homosexuals and the victims of rape and pedophilia, including the whole lot of pedophiles as the main flag risen, sacrificing these "pigs" at altars before God, making the sanctuary and the holy and the holiest unclean and the daily sacrifice must be stopped and not restarted until a time and times and a half. To most scholars and wannabe prophets it is three and a half years.

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
You are very welcome, sir. While I cannot guarantee that in the end I will agree with you, I always (try to) consider different views from my own.

I also believe that God does nothing without a purpose. Every single commandment from Genesis through Revelation has a purpose. We reap from God's knowledge by following those commandments, much as a child who has no concept of electricity will reap from his parents' knowledge when he doesn't stick things into a wall outlet. Yet there is something inside me (perhaps that spirit created 'in the image of God'?) that screams at me to at least try to understand the why behind the what. Some call this blasphemous, but I see it as akin to that childlike tendency to emulate one's parents.

Please, could you post (or repost, as I have been reading pretty fast and might have missed a few things in my zeal to catch up) some links to information on these rituals you mention? I would like a starting point from which to research them.


posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:09 PM

Chemosh (Ba'al) ... However, according to II Kings xi. 7, evidence is given that Chemosh and Moloch were two different gods or perhaps two manifestations of the same god, at least to the peoples who worshiped them. Solomon had "high places" built for both gods at the same time and in the same location, "on the mountain which is East of Jerusalem." Both Chemosh and Molech may have had the same origins but if so, by Solomon's time they had been denominated into differing objects for different peoples, Chemosh for the Moabites and Moloch for the Ammonites. Interestingly, according to Genesis xix. 30-38, both the Moabites and the Ammonites were descended from the two sons of Lot (themselves half-brothers by his two daughters), Moab and Ben-ammi. It is not unreasonable then to speculate that the origins for Chemosh (and Moloch) were borrowed from gods worshiped by the inhabitants of Sodom in which Lot's daughters had lived prior to its destruction.

The view of Josephus

Flavius Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian, wrote something along the lines of:

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.
—Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195

and Josephus recounts that when angels came to Sodom to find good men they were instead greeted by rapists[1]:

And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lots’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty....Therefore, God, indignant at their bold acts, struck them with blindness, so that they were unable to find the entrance into the house, and condemned the Sodomites to destruction of the whole population.
—Jewish Antiquities 1:199-202

He says how beautiful it was before everything was burned up, and how rich the towns were in the area. Josephus described what had happened:

Now this country is then so sadly burnt up, that nobody cares to come to it... It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that divine fire; and the shadows of the five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes growing in their fruits, which fruits have a colour as if they were fit to be eaten: but if you pluck them with your hands, they will disolve into smoke and ashes
—The Wars of the Jews, book 4, chapter 8.

Ba'al is a nickname for Satan, he has many names, like Moloch, Marduk, Ra, Heylel, Mithra and Rompha etc. I simply call him Ba'al since it makes the most sence to me. I may be wrong to give Ba'al a later god the blame for what happened in Sodom, but should instead probably have called for phallos and idol worshipping and the sacrifice of unclean animals to certain fertility gods etc. Anyway Ba'al worshippers seemed to have the same tendencies later in the Tannakh.

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by pause4thought

sorry no they didnt.. all they did was spout rhetoric from a version of the bible that has proven inaccurate..i.e corrupt.. in that they r incorrect translations.. buy those who have a hissy fit if their [AUTORITY] is questioned... and its not like they havent been proved wrong before...i think the biggest mistake we make is worshiping the bible and the church and not jesus...and its obvious that some will cling to a piece of scripture no matter how much its been proven to be misunderstood, mistranslated, or even pruposely changed to push a sects personal belief

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by drevill

can u name this source.. who wrote it and where did it orginate.. would love to read the whole thing

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:58 PM
Indeed, well spoken. Though you may find my literal translation to be wrong, it's the best we've got, and it is the literal truth one can't really deny, because the serpents are the best at retorics and will always play with what every dictionary say is the truth. In the eyes of these people homosexuals are raving mad rapists whom you need the help of angels to get rid of. Like the Angels hid the Door for the Sodomites (i.e. the inhabitants of Sodom, not gays or nessasailly perverts), angels have to reveal truths to the wicked these days and have been doing for ages. However, gays are not our enemies, if you can set them free do so, for they are the most fun people in the world. But if a man lays his hands on a child it was better for him that he'd be sunk on the bottom of the ocean with a millstone around his neck. Like a millstone being cast into the ocean is a childabuser. In an instant he will be destroyed.

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 08:00 PM
reply to post by pause4thought

thats interesting u say that because isnt it those same scholars who r starting to say that we got it wrong.. that homosexuality isnt the sin claimed by the KVJ and several other translations..???
.. which is why theres been such a big hullabaoo causing the breakup of the angelicans...

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by pause4thought

MYTH.. really have u ever discussed this with someone whos gay?? and it is debated hottly though many years ago phycologists all said it was an illness.. mental or otherwise..

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 08:08 PM


"Last Year's Man"

The rain falls down on last year's man,
that's a Jew's harp on the table,
that's a crayon in his hand.
And the corners of the blueprint are ruined since they rolled
far past the stems of thumbtacks
that still throw shadows on the wood.
And the skylight is like skin for a drum I'll never mend
and all the rain falls down amen
on the works of last year's man.
I met a lady, she was playing with her soldiers in the dark
oh one by one she had to tell them
that her name was Joan of Arc.
I was in that army, yes I stayed a little while;
I want to thank you, Joan of Arc,
for treating me so well.
And though I wear a uniform I was not born to fight;
all these wounded boys you lie beside,
goodnight, my friends, goodnight.

I came upon a wedding that old families had contrived;
Bethlehem the bridegroom,
Babylon the bride.
Great Babylon was naked, oh she stood there trembling for me,
and Bethlehem inflamed us both
like the shy one at some orgy.
And when we fell together all our flesh was like a veil
that I had to draw aside to see
the serpent eat its tail.

Some women wait for Jesus, and some women wait for Cain
so I hang upon my altar
and I voice my acts again.
And I take the one who finds me back to where it all began
when Jesus was the honeymoon
and Cain was just the man.
And we read from pleasant Bibles that are bound in blood and skin
that the wilderness is gathering
all its children back again.

The rain falls down on last year's man,
an hour has gone by
and he has not moved his hand.
But everything will happen if he only gives the word;
the lovers will rise up
and the mountains touch the ground.
But the skylight is like skin for a drum I'll never mend
and all the rain falls down amen
on the works of last year's man.

[Thanks to Tom Jernigan for correcting these lyrics]

[ ]

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by pause4thought

and u'r an expert? even the best source can be refuted and proven wrong

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 09:13 PM
Just like there are two words for love in Greek, Phileo (brotherly love like the love Jesus showed to Lazarus) and Agape (general love like between Adam and Eve) explaining two different concepts of love, Hebrew has two words for abomination, to'ebah and zimah discribing different concepts of abominations. Understand this and you will see why the verse Leviticus 20:13 is erroneously translated or lacks words explaining what kind of abomination this is.

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

the blood, meaning the isrealites

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 10:58 PM
the law for the Isrealites was so set up as they were going thru the exodous.. thier numbers wernt all that many so of course the need to maintain and increase their population took president so it makes sense to have a law like that for them.. jesus said he wasnt there to change their laws,but to give opretunity to others to gain heaven,, which says to me that we r to learn and creat laws and govern ourselves.. he himself did not say that homosexuals were an abomination, others and the church did so and then in context of the ritual of ba'al.. bible thumpers shoud also know that jesus also said to seek the truth for u'r self and not to follow blindly. and as far as the comment that we who disagree r just twisting the scripture is pure hogwash.. leaders in the chuch have never been much for being told they r wrong.. and that is in the bible too... its the main reason jesus wound up on the cross...

posted on May, 18 2008 @ 02:31 AM
Another paradoxal law in Moses seems to crash completely with Abraham. For in the covenant of Abraham all males should be circumcised, but the Law of Moses prohibits anyone who have had his male organ cut up to enter the Congregation of God. Better to be a living dog than a deaf lion... Satan probably laughs his seven heads off thinking about that law. Or do we see another Roman conspiracy here? Let's drink from the source, what word is used cut up here? The word may mean to cut off completely, but also it can mean simply "cut" or "made" (Meaning As-Ar can forget to enter the Hebrew community, since his organ was both cut off and remade), but the word isnot clear, for it can even mean to cut a covenant, exactly what circumcision is all about.

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in