Conspiracy to Surpress the Truth & Homosexuality

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I’ll ask again bigwhammy, because Christians don’t want to address this topic and it really puzzles me. Why do you not follow ALL of God’s morals? Why just the morals in relation to things you can agree with, like with homosexuality? Do you follow everything else God says in the pieces of the bible you use to put down homosexuality with?

Also, where did Jesus mention homosexuals in the bible? He didn’t, but he certainly mentioned the oppressed and outcast.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
He included many things in it not just homosexual behaviours ..
But of course that stood out to some of you who live that lifestyle ..

did you read the title of the post? it says the supression of truth and homosexuality and how dare you accuse those that are accepting of their fellow man of "living that lifestyle". I'm not gay and was extremely offended by this post. Why do people use the bible as an excuse to hate, why even waste your energy hating? your religion is hypocrisy in and of itself.



[edit on 24-11-2008 by Shocka]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I’ll ask again bigwhammy, because Christians don’t want to address this topic and it really puzzles me. Why do you not follow ALL of God’s morals? Why just the morals in relation to things you can agree with, like with homosexuality? Do you follow everything else God says in the pieces of the bible you use to put down homosexuality with?

Yes I do. I absolutely do to the best of my ability. The word sin literally means to "miss the mark" and sometimes I still miss. But I do not live in a manner that missing the mark is my lifestyle. That is the distinction. It's about progress not perfection. We are not perfected until we are home with the Lord. But we are called to repent of sin. It's process not a point of arrival. Regeneration through the Holy Spirit.

However many who get their Biblical information from skeptic canard sources do not understand the new covenant established by Jesus Christ. People bring up silly stuff about not eating shrimp or other Levitical laws which Christians are not bound by. If that is your intent please get a new hobby.

Also, where did Jesus mention homosexuals in the bible? He didn’t, but he certainly mentioned the oppressed and outcast.

This is the logical fallacy known as an argument from absence. It carries no weight. He also didn't mention a thousand other sins but that does not excuse them. His teaching is the epitome of economy. He defined marriage...

"And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

He left the details to the apostles and Paul made it explicitly clear.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (1 Cor 6:9)"



[edit on 11/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy

He left the details to the apostles and Paul made it explicitly clear.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (1 Cor 6:9)"

I hope everyone read my last post and makes personal notes on the specific translations BW chooses to use for 6:9.

So BW, which translation is this? And in what year was this translation first published?

Also notice, the placement of "homosexual offenders".

This would mean the translation went like this:

Arsenokoitai ---> Sodomite ---> homosexual offender.

So Sodomite became homosexual offender eh? Gee I wonder if the homosexual spin on the Sodom and Gomorrah story gave birth to this "translation"

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

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Also, where did Jesus mention homosexuals in the bible? He didn’t, but he certainly mentioned the oppressed and outcast.

This is the logical fallacy known as an argument from absence. It carries no weight. He also didn't mention a thousand other sins but that does not excuse them.

Well he said a lot of things that he wanted his followers to do. Preach the word, keep rememberance of him, etc. He NEVER said that gays were to be abhorred. I would say that your argument is one of "inclusion". Adding to the Scriptures. Are we to keep to the "Law" that Jesus fulfilled? Let the stonings begin.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Yes I do. I absolutely do to the best of my ability.

So you agree with everything else mentioned as sinful or morally appropriate in the pieces of the bible you reference? You do realize much of the OT is not meant for “Christians” to practice, do you disagree with this? Why do you think many Christians dismiss most of the OT but none of the references to homosexuality?

He defined marriage...

I didn’t ask about marriage, I asked about homosexuality. And I never stated that absence shaped his opinion, I’m merely pointing out this subject you think is so important was never mentioned by your savior.

He left the details to the apostles and Paul made it explicitly clear

So you think Jesus agrees with absolutely everything else Paul states in the bible?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy



Hey Lucid ....I would love to hear your view then on what these verses are saying ?

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


The men left the NATURAL USE of the women ...and BURNED IN THEIR LUST one toward another ...men with men working that which is UNSEEMLY >>.(
Explain then what those verses mean ?
I think those verses are pretty cut and dried .....and self explanatory ..Dont you think ?
If not ..I would love to hear what could be unseemly between two men and the burning in their LUST towards eachother means exactly ....in your own view ..(Oh wait isnt this where yall say the bible isnt true and it was written by men so now that your not the one quoting it to use as your weapon now it doesnt count right ) ..............

Acceptance of Gay Men

Matthew 19: 11-12

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Typically a eunuch is defined as a castrated male. This is incorrect. Castration means to remove the testicles (that were already there) or emasculate. If all eunuchs were castrated males then why would Jesus say that "some were born that way?" A eunuch is a man who has no desire or ability to have sexual relations with a woman.

These men were commonly used to protect the harems.

[edit on 24/11/08 by toochaos4u]

[edit on 24/11/08 by toochaos4u]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


It's a modern translation. The NIV. Your attempts to obfuscate the clear and explicit word of God utterly fail. It is absurd to ever suggest it not sinful.

In 1973 the New Testament was published. The Committee carefully reviewed suggestions for revisions and adopted a number of them, which they incorporated into the first printing of the entire Bible in 1978. Additional changes were made in 1983.
www.biblegateway.com...

[edit on 11/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Simplynoone


Correct the attempts made by liberals to muddy this issue is exactly what I am talkling about in the OP.

Men who suppress the truth!!! That is what brings the wrath of God.

Notice this argument from absence that has been suggested is of clear Satanic origin...

Genesis 3

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Did God really say that homosexuality is a sin?


hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

God is not supporting any nation on the face of the earth today.
Maybe thats why Christ taught his followers to pray for Gods Kingdom to come. All nations today stand condemned in the eyes of God

For God to have abandoned a naton, he would at one time had to be supporting of it, approving of it, and declaring it's inhabitants to be "His People".



[edit on 24-11-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Well then you cant use a book written by DAWSON ...or Scientific data written BY SOME MAN >..........or some Animal behaviours noticed in the animal world ..(gay animals ) ....as meaning THEY ARE GAY >.(They are NOT GAY they are just HORNY so get over that already ) ......

I mean sheeshh ....they are not ALL TRUTHS EITHER >.and yet they get quoted as TRUTHS around here alot .....to back up your theories ...and no one seems to have a problem with that do they ? ...........
What is the difference ? They are YOUR TRUTHS ..and the bible is OURS >

That's because they are backed up by scientific fact, proven. What proof or scientific data do you have to back up this book that you base your life on? these scientific facts don't tell us how to live our lives in anyway.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Yes Jesus absolutely agrees with everything Paul states in the Bible that is doctrinal. And the OT is not necessary to establish that it is sin as the verse I quoted 1 Cor 6:9 and the entire OP was from the New Testament. Christians are not to define themselves by sexuality period.

[edit on 11/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

It's a modern translation. The NIV. Your attempts to obfuscate the clear and explicit word of God utterly fail. It is absurd to ever suggest it not sinful.

That is the entirety of your rebuttal!? To all my points?? Everything I said "utterly failed" because you wrote 2 sentences saying I was attempting to "obfuscate the clear and explicit meaning"??

Wow having a debate with you is utterly laughable.

I don't know why I am so shocked. Amazing...

It is absurd to ever suggest it not sinful.

You are absurd BW. You are so utterly transparent. You can't open your mind up enough to even consider what I said, or even bring yourself to reply to any of my points. Amazing...

This is the real conspiracy: You ignore all translations that do not include "homosexual" directly in those passages!

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

reply to post by Bigwhammy

OT is not necessary to establish that it is sin

So then you disregard homosexuality being condemned in the OT. If not then you agree with or approve of executing brides that are discovered to not be virgins, stoning adulterers to death, and executing a married couple who has sex while the woman is having her period.

Let us move on to the NT. Do you agree with forbidding divorce and a woman being required to sleep with her deceased husband’s brothers until she produces a son as an heir to carry on his name?


[edit on 24-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by intrepid


I never said anyone was to be abhorred, that is your bias. I would rather say pity and empathy are in order. But certainly not approval. Everyone has their cross to bear. Salvation requires denial of self.

The rest of your argument is Satanic in it's origin - I recognize right away - it goes way back to Genesis chapter 3.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"


Does this verse really say "nor homosexual offenders"?

1 Cor 6:9"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

Does this verse really say "vile passions"

Rom1:26"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. "

Does this verse really say "leaving the natural use" and "shameful"

Rom 1:27 "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

Yes they do say!

The bible is clear the revisionists are absurd. BTW all these are New Testament references.

[edit on 11/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Simplynoone


And I would love to give you my interpretation And I will!

However... was that just an attempt to say I was wrong? Do you not first have some thoughts to share on my first post concerning Cor 6:9 and Timothy?

Please let me know this is genuine interest on your part, as it is on mine

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage




I saw you coming a mile away... in my first reply to you...

However many who get their Biblical information from skeptic canard sources do not understand the new covenant established by Jesus Christ. People bring up silly stuff about not eating shrimp or other Levitical laws which Christians are not bound by. If that is your intent please get a new hobby.

You anti christian bigots are getting so predictable *yawns*

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I’m relaying to you “God’s will” and morality as stated by Mark(MARK 10:1-12, MARK 12:18-27 ) in the NT and you disagree? If you disagree with those statements then why agree with the references you use to condemn homosexuality?


Seven of the bibles million verses mention same-sex behavior and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today. They can easily be referring simply to lust, rape, or prostitution. Remember they are translated from languages that didn’t necessarily have words to define homosexuality as it exists as an orientation, nor did they understand this or the complexity of sexuality.




[edit on 24-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Does this verse really say "nor homosexual offenders"?

1 Cor 6:9"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

Yes they do say!

The bible is clear the revisionists are absurd. BTW all these are New Testament references.

The Bible?? Revisionists are absurd?? Oh yeah?

That would make you the absurd revisionist BW!!

The King James Translation predates the ones you are using by multiple centuries!...

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

No.

They do not include "homosexual offenders". THAT is a revisionist addition.

But again, the focus should not be on the modern translations or even on the KJV. It should be on 'arsenokoitai' and 'malakoi'. For such obvious reasons that I am astounded why you fail to grasp that point.

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