Conspiracy to Surpress the Truth & Homosexuality

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Quite frankly the opinion of the humanist is quite irrelevant to the council of God.


but god made these humanists,and as we all know God is perfect and EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE IS PERFECT according to you Bibley types. That includes us poofters by the way. He/she/it made us,apparently. And you blathering on about how bad we are,highlights how bad YOU are for going against your god.

shame on you,oh,and you don't half chat alot of BS.

[edit on 24/11/2008 by Acidtastic]
Sorry you believe that. But I seem to remember a bit of that wonderful book that quotes God as saying "slaves obey your masters". You believe that nonsense? Over that I will take a compassionate humanist any day of the week.




posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


Individual atheists might not (though I doubt you've meet all the atheists in the world) but an establishment needs to be to be fair and balanced. Atheism is not the opposite if theism remember, but the absence of theism. The US is supposed to be secular in order to support the individual freedoms of it's people.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


You missed Good Wolf's point. The Government must be atheist in it's dealings (non-theist). This is the core of the seperation of church and state.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Indeed, when one religious group has power over the rights and freedoms of the other groups (like prop 8), you are on your way to having a fascist nation.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 




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.


The change in vocabulary only reflects the depths of depravity in which we have sunk! They didn't have a special word for it because it does not need one! It is a perversion - "orientation" is a modern invention to excuse it. Just like instead of having a "wife" we now have "My baby's Momma" or my "live in"or a domestic partner. They didn't have specific words for those either. But they sure did say "vile affections". Mark 10 absolutely applies today for Christians but you are wrong to think that this passage in Mark 8 is new covenant. The Sadducees were Jews asking a question about the Moasic law... massive fail.

I don't hate anyone - I hate the suppression of the truth.

[edit on 11/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



Mark 10 absolutely applies today for Christians but you are wrong to think that this passage in mark 8 is new covenant. The Sadducees were Jews asking a question about the Moasic law... massive fail.


Do you agree with the morality expressed in Mark or not? Do you deny the morality expressed? If so why? What in the translation of the expressed morality is incorrect to you and therefore not worth agreeing with? How is it mistated?



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



The change in vocabulary only reflects the depths of depravity in which we have sunk!


No, it clearly shows a lack of understanding, how simple one was labeled. Labeling someone with the same term if they were raping, molesting, prostituting or being consensual. That doesn't make much sense to me, which is why I conclude that they did not understand orientation, nor did they clearly express their opinion of it as we understand it today.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 




They didn't have specific words for those either. But they sure did say "vile affections".


Most people only know that vile means that which is repulsive or disgusting etc.But it also means: of little worth or account.How can you be sure of which meaning is being used in the Bible verse you mentioned?




I don't hate anyone - I hate the suppression of the truth.


Strange thing for you to say,as you are manipulating the truth.




[edit on 24-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Be specific what is this generalized "morality" you speak of - that is so non specific? - your just playing games...



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

LOL - there was no vocabulary word for a homosexual untill the 19th century -- yeah sorry but funny how the scholars that translate the passage do not agree with you.


Those modern publishers have your agenda that's why.

There was no equivalent words that could directly translate to 'Homosexual" or "homosexuality" prior to:


In the last two decades of the 19th Century, a different view began to predominate in medical and psychiatric circles, judging such behavior as indicative of a type of person with a defined and relatively stable sexual orientation. Karl-Maria Kertbeny coined the term homosexual in 1869 in a pamphlet arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law.[16][17] Richard von Krafft-Ebing's 1886 book Psychopathia Sexualis elaborated on the concept.[17]


That is historical fact.

The Biblical languages have words describing sexual acts. And only sexual acts. i.e Pedastry, Prostitution, etc etc. That is also historical fact.

BTW Why did you ignore my counter-argument to your assertion that 'effeminacy' literally meant 'homosexual' in King James times?? Oh that's right, you ignored pretty much everything I said and will continue to


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



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Out of love(?) Lesbians fight visciously for a lifestyle that shortens the lifespan of males



Don't need a bible or any religion. for that matter, to see that



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I wonder what the biblical authors had against effeminacy any way. It seems a bizarre thing to get upset about. I think it's pretty indicative that the authors were bringing more to the bible than divine "inspiration" but their pre-existing bigotry as well. I would even go so far to say that BW's hate would be similar.

The attitude toward homosexuality and other sexuality matters seem only to represent the places that the bible books were written and the customs held at the time.

If the bible was written in ancient Greece or Rome we would still have pederasty. Why would we want to emulate the morality and attitudes of the middle east from 2000 years ago? They hated homosexuals obviously, but at least Greece's pederasty contributed something to the society though unity. But all this stuff is just hate.



[edit on 25/11/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Be specific what is this generalized "morality" you speak of - that is so non specific? - your just playing games...


I'm re-asking my question because you failed to answer it. No matter how many ways I ask it you dismiss it or dance around it. Do you agree with the morality or not? You said you did. So you must agree with the morality expressed about divorce and heirs, or else you, like the bible, contradict yourself. Which is it?



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage, jackyl, lucid
 


The point is the same term was used because all were unacceptable. All of the early church fathers clearly understood these words to refer to homosexuals. Your agenda is clear. Same with Jackyl. Same with Lucid. You want to get yourselves off the hook by casting doubt on clear language - it fails to convince the scholars who translate - and it fails to convince me - I wish it were that easy - I have no interest in your damnation I would plead your case if you had one. But since you don't that would be doing you a disservice. The fact that it is a sin and unacceptable behavior is not even questionable for me.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

The Bible
Malakos is listed among other vices in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians. 6:9. Translations use different terms to express this: "The JB (1966) chooses 'catamite,' the NAB (1970) renders arsenokoités and malakos together as 'sodomite,' others translate malakos as 'male prostitute' (NIV 1973, NRSV 1989), and again some combine both terms and offer the modern medicalised categories of sexual, or particularly homosexual, 'perversion' (RSV 1946, TEV 1966, NEB 1970, REB 1992)." (Martin, 1996). The word malakos, #3120 in the Greek Dictionary of The New Testament of James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to The Bible translates: "of uncertain affinity"


Also to note, as I said earlier:

Malakoi --> Effeminacy --> Homosexual?

Jesus used 'malakoi' himself. It's in the Bible.


"Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold those who wear soft raiment are in kings' houses." (Matthew 11:8; similar passage at Luke 7:25.)


Those "soft" instances were translated from 'malakoi'.

Was Jesus speaking of homosexuals here?

There is nothing "clear cut" or "explicit" about the meaning of these Greek words and their subsequent translations.

It only seems that way because you are holding these specific modern translations above the originally written words themselves! And above the KJV translation. And above other modern translations that do not include "homosexual" in those passages.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



The point is the same term was used because all were unacceptable.


We get that this is your opinion. You seem to have trouble supporting it. Unless you are squealing childishly "massive fail" you aren't bringing anything new to the discussion. You simple repeat we are wrong; so far you lack the ability to support this or your own conclusions other than blaming everything on conspiracies and agendas or someone else's lack of understanding.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I think the contextual use and concern for 'effeminacy' is different then how we would necessarily think of it today.

The concern back in those times I believe, was that the men were not strong and powerful as a Greek man should be according to their social construct. Exhibiting any feminine qualities were deemed as a moral weakness I guess. I don't know.

Either way... even 'effeminacy' is a translation in of itself. From 'malakoi'. 'malakoi' literally means 'soft'. Generally speaking this just meant 'to be of soft moral character'. But when Jesus used them in the Bible he literally did mean 'soft' as he was speaking of certain kind of clothing (which had implications I am sure...I doubt he meant homosexual clothing though
)

*edited because I saw your update: yeah I don't agree with many aspects of morality in those Biblical times, so I definitely see your point.

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



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

I'm re-asking my question because you failed to answer it. No matter how many ways I ask it you dismiss it or dance around it. Do you agree with the morality or not? You said you did. So you must agree with the morality expressed about divorce and heirs, or else you, like the bible, contradict yourself. Which is it?


I answered that! The teaching on divorce is right on the money and still in effect today. I also told you are dead wrong on the one about heirs- you have no understanding of the passage - The passage is a question asked by the Sadducees it refers to the OT customs of the Jews only! It does not apply to Christians today. This is a trite manipulation you attempt to use to muddy the waters on inexperienced Christians - it is a demonic tactic.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

I'm re-asking my question because you failed to answer it. No matter how many ways I ask it you dismiss it or dance around it. Do you agree with the morality or not? You said you did. So you must agree with the morality expressed about divorce and heirs, or else you, like the bible, contradict yourself. Which is it?


I answered that! The teaching on divorce is right on the money and still in effect today. I also told you are dead wrong on the one about heirs- you have no understanding of the passage - The passage is a question asked by the Sadducees it refers to the OT customs of the Jews only! It does not apply to Christians today. This is a trite manipulation you attempt to use to muddy the waters on inexperienced Christians - it is a demonic tactic.


The demonic tactic is that of the Christians abolishing the old laws. Jesus came to "Fulfill the law." Christians decided that meant, out with those crazy old Jew laws, we can make up brand new ones and forget all those.

The demon came in convincing people that Jesus either lied, or was wrong and poof, we have the Christian understanding of the bible.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Flame away if you must - you will bring me blessings.



Folks, stop this nonsense. He wants this. As far as he's concerned, every voice raised against him proves him right.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join