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.


Conspiracy to Surpress the Truth & Homosexuality

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I'm curious. Do we really need another thread on this issue? Do a search on "gay" or "homosexual" in the "Conspiracies in Religions" forum alone. Is there really promise that we will see any other arguments in this thread, than the 5,000 other on the board?

Dude, with an attitude and name like big whammy, one cannot help but wonder, whether he does indeed spend a LOT of time searching frases like, gay and homosexual. But not neccassarily here on ATS if you know what I mean.

Another Ted Haggart perhaps ?

I can't seem to find an emoticon for pillowmunching

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Simplynoone

I think the problem people have is using religion as an equivalent for truth. In actuality, you are letting religion influence your opinion and then passing that opinion off as truth.

That is fine....we are all entitled to our opinions. But, we are not all entitled to ram our opinions down others' throats, claiming that is truth.

State it as your opinion.....don't equate it to the truth that EVERYONE should ascribe to.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:36 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

I am with you, OP.

Too bad that it's not considered 'politically correct' to even stand up for morals these days.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by Old Man

Whose morals? Yours?

Like it or not, not everyone has the same moral structure. Morals cannot be legislated; every time it has been tried, it has not succeeded.

You have your morals; I have mine. Neither is better than the other. And, neither of us have the right to try to force our morals on anyone else. We don't have that right, and all we can do is try to be the best people we can be without infringing on other's rights and freedoms.

[edit on 11/24/2008 by skeptic1]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by skeptic1

Couldn't agree more!
here's some truth or not, depend which way you look.

Jesus the Queen of Israel ? no wonder he changed his mind about stoning !

In this letter, Clement quotes two passages from the second, secret Gospel of Mark. In these passages, we are given a glimpse of ancient accounts of Jesus that are not known from any other source, until this letter appeared. The first passage, Clement indicates, occurs immediately after what is now Mark 10:34, and reads as follows:

They came to Bethany, and a woman was there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus, saying to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But his disciples rebuked her. Jesus became angry and went off with her to the garden where the tomb was.

Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb. Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. Immediately he went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand, and raised him by seizing his hand.

The young man looked at him intently and loved him; and he began pleading with him that he might be with him. When they came out of the tomb they went to the young man's house, for he was wealthy.

And after six days Jesus gave him a command. And when it was evening the young man came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. He stayed with him that night, for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. When he got up from there, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Old Man
Too bad that it's not considered 'politically correct' to even stand up for morals these days.

What morals would you be talking about here. Love, tollerence, understanding? Or would it be suppression, castigation and distaste?

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:44 PM
I would have to say that religion has caused infinitely more pain suffering and misery than gayness ever could.

1) I'm not gay.

2) I have nothing against gays, (do as you please, just don't proposition me)

3) I don't give a flying frick about anyone elses sexual preference.

4) I used to be a Christian, but now I realize that it is just another way to control people.( I believe in God, but the true God requires no worship, and would never extol his wrath on someone because they loved the "wrong" sex.)

5) There will not be true freedom on this planet until the last priest is hanged by the intestines of the last king.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by Raustin


the next post after yours MRMagoo old man, to bigwhammy

"I'm with you! "

I nearly shat my own pants laughing

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by Old Man

Wow again! This is not about being PC, it's about letting someone live there life (that is not affecting anyone else) without being labeled as a punishment from God. Leave 'em alone. If you're right, gloat in heaven. If you really want to be a good Christian devote your hate speech time to charity work. I know there are quite a few places that could use a hand right now.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by Simplynoone

Yes in my view David was bisexual and Jonathan was gay. That was the point and I see no clue about stripping of clothes and embracing as being a brotherly love thing. Saul calling him his son in law twice.

Saul chastised his son for being with David.

He tried to kill David.

David and Jonathan have a lovely moment that if were between him and his wife at the time would have been made into a movie.

When Jonathan is killed David claims the love he felt was stronger than between he and his wife. His love surpassed the love a woman.

1 Samuel

# "The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul ... And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments ... and his girdle." 18:1-4

# "Jonathan ... delighted much in David." 19:2

David runs from Saul and abandons his wife 19:11

17And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul. 20:17

20:21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.

(You are my son in law twice even though you married only one daughter)

# Saul is angered by his son's homosexual affair with David and says, "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" 20:30
(blaming it on mom!)

Saul is so angry that he tries to kill his own son: And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David. 20:33

# David and Jonathan "kissed one another, and wept with one another" when they parted for the last time. 20:41
(Kissing Kissing it should have been a movie! )

2 Samuel

# David says to Jonathan: "very pleasant has thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of woman." 1:26
(I love him more than my wife or other women)

[edit on 24/11/08 by toochaos4u]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by Old Man

I am with you, OP. Too bad that it's not considered 'politically correct' to even stand up for morals these days.

Thanks old man. "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

lots of people want to know:

Whose morals? Yours?

Gods. The one true to God who has revealed himself through his creation and thus holds all men accountable. The same God that revealed himself in a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors. The only morals that count. Most people do not even believe in objective morality today. That is until something immoral is done to them and then all of sudden they do... when it is convenient. I know I am not perfect and I know I can't live up to them in my own power that is why I live in submission to Jesus Christ and he truth of the Bible. Humanism leads to eternal death.

Proverbs 14:
12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

Your Gods morals. Your God may not be the God of others. Your God may be the creation of man. Your God may be a helluva lot more tolerant than anyone gives him credit for....especially those in charge of organized religion.

I have a relationship with God....and he/she does not make me focus on the negatives of the world or demonize others and their lives and decisions or try to lay blame on society's ills on the shoulders of his/her other creations.

My God wants me to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. And, shockingly enough, I don't have to go to a church weekly to figure that out, I didn't have to read a book written by men to figure that out, and I didn't have to have other people tell me what to think or how to feel. I used the common sense and empathy my creator endowed me with to figure that out all on my own.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:02 PM
I love how you presume to know God's will. I suppose that you are the new savior. Get off the high horse, you're not convincing anyone. Gay people are not lacking morality. The gay community is the least of societies problems. I would be willing to bet that if there were statistics published, they would be some of the most law abiding citizens in the world. Take off the clan costume and go do something with your life. Something productive that is.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

Gods. The one true to God who has revealed himself through his creation and thus holds all men accountable. The same God that revealed himself in a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors. The only morals that count.

No, it is YOUR morals. You pick and choose verses to suit whatever fancies you. YOU chose which interpretation of the Bible to accept. YOU choose this particular book out of hundreds of scriptures. YOU chose this particular God, which is an interpretation of many preachers.

So, yes, it is YOUR morals, your belief.

Homosexuality is a result of God's wrath? 9/11 linked to homosexuality? I know you are an intelligent man, but this is beneath you. Get yourself out of it before too late.

Do not go to the dark side of the force.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Raustin


the next post after yours MRMagoo old man, to bigwhammy

"I'm with you! "

I nearly shat my own pants laughing


Well, I'm glad people can sometimes see the funny side of things. I do the same myself......often.

I'm still firmly on the side of the OP though

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by jakyll
You ignored this reply on another thread,maybe you'll answer it here,if you can.
It concerns the meaning of Romans chapter 1.

Paul was talking about 2different things,the manner in which they worshiped false idols (taking part in sacred prostitution) and the manner in which they lived their lives.

Verse 26 uses the words 'for this cause' meaning the cause/manner of worship undertaken by the people.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Paul clearly was addressing "men who suppress the truth" as I clearly demonstrated in the OP. Paganism was merely a symptom of truth suppression as is todays scientific naturalism and new age occultism.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness"

The rest explains why they should have recognized God - it deals with the denial of Gods existence which is the core issue!

"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. "

They denied God so their hearts were darkened. Now that their hearts are darkened comes the paganism and homosexuality.

"because of this" is clearly refering to "exchanging the truth for a lie" and the paganism, it does not matter if it is Roman paganism or Oprah Winfrey's new age beliefs. The manner of worship is not the important thing it is suppression of the truth.

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

So,you tell me,how those who did not create any of these life/religious threatening things have brought down the Wrath of God upon America.

You missed the point - you should reread the OP. Homosexuality, while it is clearly a sin, is not the main cause of Gods wrath it is an effect of it. The cause is truth suppression! Listen to John MacArthur explain it in the part 1 video. It's a one of many causes but mainly it is a manifestation of wrath as Romans explicitly teaches.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:35 PM

9/11 linked to homosexuality?

I never ever said this... People see a picture and I guess their minds make the connection but no I did not say that or even imply it. I do believe 9/11 was a manifestation of the wrath of God but the cause was radical Islamic extremism.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by Old Man

No offence dude, couldn't help myself, you have to admit though bigwhammy is preaching like a closet gay.

here's a short vid to explain what I mean

[edit on 24-11-2008 by moocowman]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

Another homosexual thread from Big expected

The topic on whether it is sin or not is pure absurdity and I do not need to address

it as 1 Cor 6:9 is explicit. However that out of the way...

Not so fast! Like a thief in the night you are. Since most of the members here have already called this thread what it is, and most on ATS by now recognize the wolf underneath the clothing, I am going to be very on topic and address this 6:9 conspiracy

Here are your words from an another thread, for some perspective:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites" (1 Co 6:9)

1 Cor 6:9 is very explicit that homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

If they remain in a gay lifestyle they most likely are not in Christ. - 1 cor 6:9 is very cut and dry.

Very explicit and very cut and dry eh?
roflwaffles. doubt when you use "translations" dating after the advent of the computer maybe! doubt when you overlook the original Greek words themselves that formed the basis for translation of this passage. When you overlook the fact that even Christian theologists and historians don't have a consensus on their meanings! (If you researched you would know this to be true) doubt when you over look that fact the even some modern translations don't say "homosexual", but rather "male prostitute" or "sodomite".

No?... prove it. Which translation did you use, which translation(s) do you always use for 6:9 Big Whammy?

Let's compare your selective (
) modern passage to a more historically accurate one:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai]"

First and foremost, none of the three biblical languages contained a word that could be directly translated to "homosexual". Not even during the times of the KJV translation. Not even until the 19th century. None of them contained a word that described homosexuals, or the homosexual orientation. The orginal biblical languages only have words describing specific sexual acts. This is crucial to understanding the original contextual meaning.

'Malakoi' and 'Aresenokoitai' got translated into 'Effeminate' and 'Sodomite' respectively. Which later became "homosexual". Obviously since it was God's spoken Word, written through inspired hands, we should first and foremost hold the original meaning above later translations (in light of deviations), right?? So let's ommit "homosexual", and "effeminate" and "sodomite", and take a look at those original Greek words; malakoi and arsenokoitai.

The word 'arsenokoitai' is believed to have been most likely 'invented' by Paul himself, as the Bible is the first record of the word's use. It is used only twice in the entire Bible, and both times written by Paul. In fact, this word was pretty much non-existant outside of the Bible in those times.

'Arseno' translates to 'man/male' and 'koitai' to 'bed or bedder'. That means this word, and subsequently its use in the Bible, only refers to men. Therefore it cannot be refering to the homosexuals themselves, as women can be homosexual i.e lesbians.

So then what act does this word refer to? Many biblical sholars and or theologists believe Paul had meant it to *possibly mean this act:
Pederasty: adult male child molesters (sexual act). Either way, it only refers to a male act, therefore cannot be refering to homosexuality itself. Either way, most original translations and interpretations of 'arsenokoitai' have been centered around various sexual deviant acts, and of men specifically. If you want sources just ask BW

'malakoi' meets the same level of ambiguity and conflict of meaning. Literally translated as "soft". This word is used in Greek litature outside the Bible, and usually means a general lack of moral strength i.e morally soft, weak. *When Jesus uses this word in the Bible he is refering to "soft" clothing.*

In the context of this passage, many biblical scholars and theologists believe Paul had meant it to mean:
a young male prostitute. Too morally weak, that he would sucumb to being a sex slave for money. For both men and women. And again, this is a sexual act, not an orientation. Whereas others have kept this word to mean a general moral weakness. If you want sources just ask BW

So how then did 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai' translate to 'effeminate' and 'sodomite' and then become modern translations for "homosexual"?.... they didn't. At all. There was no translation to begin with. No new linguistic evidence to justify it. The modern versions of this passage were edited, with an agenda. One that is quite clear. This passage was not about homosexuality before, so it cannot be about homosexuality now Big Whammy.

FYI, all of this applies to Timothy 1:10 as well. As that passage is also based on the translation of 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai'.

Ultimately, I am just expressing how absolutely absurd your "cut and dry" and "very explicit" talk is
The more you research these 2 words, the more you will see what I am talking about. I have to include that you either are not aware of the ambiguity behind these Greek words, or you are aware, and you deliberately ignore it and choose select modern translations to further your anti-gay agenda...

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in