Conspiracy to Surpress the Truth & Homosexuality

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Bloody hell, it's even more ambiguous than I thought then. It only seems to refer to men who were not manly-men and history will tell us that in antiquity "manly" didn't have much a'do with sexuality as even manly men engaged in same-sex relationships all over the world.

In some cases manly even insinuated male-male sex and still had a good connotation- kinda like "Your not a man till you've had a man."

[edit on 24/11/2008 by Good Wolf]




posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


No trouble supporting it as the vast majority of Biblical scholars all agree with my "opinion" and the Bibles have the word "homosexual" printed in them.

NIV 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

ESV Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

NASB Or 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 [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,

NLT Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,

No trouble at all...

You are beyond pathetic to go this route - why bother - you don't want to live by the Bible anyway. So why bother trying to give yourself license.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 




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


You wanna back up that claim with some quotes,coz all i can find from early church fathers is the mention of pederasty,prostitution,incest,adultery and fornication.

For example;

"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born"
(Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).


"[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods"
Justin Martyr.(First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).


"The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned,
Clement of Alexandria.(The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193).


"You shall not commit fornication; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not be a corrupter of youth." "You shall not be a corrupter of boys, nor like unto such."
Letter of Barnabas 10 (A.D. 74).




Edit to add....every one of those Bibles quoted above by you are modern,try adding some from versions that are 100s of years old just to show people the difference.



[edit on 24-11-2008 by jakyll]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
NASB Or 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 [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,


Again, a complete disregard for what has been said

Let's actually use our brains and actually analyze what went into this particular translation.

Notice the placement of homosexual here?

This means:

Arsenokoitai --> Sodomite --> homosexuals.

Notice too, the inclusion of 'effeminacy'. Which means they probably based this translation on earlier translations that included 'effeminacy' and 'sodomite'. This particular instance was from 'sodomite'.

So BW... does 'sodomite' directly translate to 'homosexual'??



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Sodomy (IPA: /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe the act of anal intercourse, oral intercourse, as well as bestiality. When used in a religious context, it has a negative connotation



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider

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.


Want it? No - I don't want it or like it - I wish everyone would get right with God.

Does it verify that I am on the right track when the world is against it and the humanists and hedonists are all screaming foul - yes you are right on that account. If they supported my teaching ~ I would be in grave error.

John 15:18-19
"If the world hates you, you should realize that it hated me before you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as one of its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you."

Good night.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider

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.



Yeah I know
You are correct.

Honestly, the only reason I post in BW's threads is so that the unsuspecting new member doesn't read his posts and believe his crap.

I said to Goodwolf earlier:

BW Doesn't want to interpret the Bible, he wants it to interpret him.

Oh well. I am off. I am gonna spend some time with someone who is much more Christian then BW is: my cat.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Sodomite.Original meaning:an inhabitant of the city of Sodom.

Sodomy.Origin 1250–1300.Meaning:anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex./copulation with a member of the same sex./bestiality.


Related link.
dictionary.reference.com...


Many words have more than one meaning,just because one becomes more popular than the other does not mean that those in the past used it in the same manner/meaning.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


So you believe adulterers should be stoned to death? Again, you have never confirmed this. This is what is expressed in the text.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



No trouble supporting it as the vast majority of Biblical scholars all agree with my "opinion"


They do? Like which ones for instance? And please produce evidence that they are the “majority”. You have yet to do so, true or not, that is not my fault, this is your own lacking.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The change in vocabulary only reflects the depths of depravity in which we have sunk!


Hrm. Quite the assertion. Can you find a credentialed linguist to support your position that the evolution of language reflects the dilution of morality? And before you suggest the 'credentialed' part isn't important, I'd just like to point out that you brought an appeal to authority earlier when you dismissed Lucid Lunacy's views with an appeal to your own authority on the subject.



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.


This seems like a difficult claim to defend. That's sort of like saying we didn't have a word for quanta back then because we didn't need one. Except back then we thought nothing smaller than an atom could exist. When we discovered otherwise, we began to adjust our vocabulary to reflect the new understanding. Similarly with sexuality. Just because you strongly feel sexuality is an exceptional topic doesn't mean it is from a rational standpoint.

From a theological standpoint, one could argue that everyone is a sinner and will continue to be. It's through different experiences that different people decide to live their lives "by the Book" (excuse the pun). So why the focus and concern with homosexuality in particular? If the laws of God are so clearly good, so well explained as to be self-evident, what's it matter to you if your pet sin is glorified by society? Greed is glorified by society too, and it's easier to prove real damage is done by greed than it is by an individual's sexual preference. So will your next thread be condemning CEO's with fat paychecks laying off the downtrodden?



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.


Massive fail? Funny. The fact is, if you want to look at things anthropologically, many societies have a huge range of ideas defining relationships and varying levels of commitment or societal recognition. You're just personally quite focused on Judeo-Christians. If you have a look at pre-Christian tribal and pagan societies, it's quite evident that your peculiar notion that all things sinful were once described in simple and stark terms and today are muddied by our godless society is just that: your peculiar notion.



I don't hate anyone - I hate the suppression of the truth.
[edit on 11/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]


But you especially hate the "suppression of truth" about teh homos. This is apparent.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Wrong Thread For Some Reason...




[edit on 24/11/2008 by toochaos4u]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I wasn't going to jump in on this but enough is enough.

Gay's may not have the right to marry but they still have the right to do whatever it is they do behind closed doors. Public displays of affection, and anything else a Man Women couple may do.

They are all acting however like they have NO rights to being gay simply because they do not get the legal certified document that claims the other person as their legal partner. Marriage is a whole bunch of PAPERWORK HOOBLAH! I don't understand why gay couples WANT to get married?!?! Isn't it just good enough to know your free to be the way you are??? I'm sure someday full gay rights will come,. but give it time guys,. 100 years ago everyone wore the same outfit because there was no "cool outfits" and "designer brand names" and women weren't even aloud to smoke in public, blacks were still segregated.

I mean we elected a decently liberal multi-racial man to the white house, and we are just starting to loosen up. Nobody is denying there are thousands if not millions of gays in the United States! There are issues more than Christianity as to why they are not currently aloud to marry, including obviously the tax breaks and write offs granted to these couples. Also, I do know gay couples who are unfit to raise children. They know it too, but they are seriously lacking in responsibility and choose to live a very "party" lifestyle. NOT the type of parents I would ever want to grow up with. Ever.

Edit: Would just like to say one last thing. Growing up with two female parents or two male parents could really drastically change the outcome of the child. Especially raising a female among males, or a male among females. I'm not saying it's a definite negative impact either way, but it is definitely an impact and there will be a need for the child to get interaction among adults of other sex throughout their life to impose positive role models.

[edit on 24/11/2008 by blowfishdl]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by blowfishdl
 


1. You are in the wrong thread, this is not about gay marriage at all.

2.

Would just like to say one last thing. Growing up with two female parents or two male parents could really drastically change the outcome of the child.


Research disagrees:

Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?

Many lesbians and gay men are parents; others wish to be parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Although comparable data are not available, many single lesbians and gay men are also parents, and many same-sex couples are part-time parents to children whose primary residence is elsewhere.

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. The most common questions and answers to them are these:

1. Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents? For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

2. Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity? For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

3. Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships? For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members, and friends.

4. Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent’s friends or acquaintances? There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.



www.apa.org...
www.apa.org...



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by blowfishdl
 



to impose positive role models.


A positive role model is shaped by their actions and mentality. Not their gender. This world is made of females and males, gender roles are easy to learn, they are also instinctive, there are far more important things that parents bring to the table that have nothing to do with gender.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Holy cow another homosexuality thread - and with the same people railing against it no less!

Anyway, I didn't read it all but I do have to say I 100% agree with Jekyll.

Homosexuality is the new terror from "within" and Islam is the new terror from "without" so the people who pull the strings in our society can scare enough people to retain their power.

Whammy, Simplynoone, have you ever thought for a moment that this obvious fearmongering about a group of people (homosexuals) that literally and truthfully do not affect you could be another tactic to keep the same lunatics in charge?

I believe that is the real conspiracy to suppress the truth, because if you knew that homosexuals were completely benign, you'd have one less thing to fear, and no power-hungry leaders benefit when their subjects are content at home, now do they?

Think about that.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone
reply to post by toochaos4u
 




The POINT that Bigwhammy was getting at is that GOD is being KICKED OUT OF OUR SOCIETY ..and is being replaced with (ADD WHATEVER HERE) ..

Do you really think a CREATOR GOD is going to take that lightly ?


Depends if he takes it as good as Zeus, Odin, or any of the other creator dieties have taken it as they were phased out of society. Then again, a few people get killed by lightning every year, so maybe Zeus is still hurling a few bolts here and there.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I have not personally met and gotten to know a person who was raised by homosexual parents that turned out any more "broke" then other good friends of mine who were raised by heterosexual parents. And I have 2 different friends that were raised by homosexual mothers. We are all good people with normal problems.

The nuclear family unit is a silly argument. As if a mother and a father is some guarantee of good parenting... I have, because of the care home I grew up in, met many broken kids as a result of their drug abusive and physically abusive parents. Those parents were all heterosexual. (There are homosexual parents that abuse kids or abuse drugs., but I didn't personally get any exposure to them.) I completely agree with you that orientation is irrelevant to parenting. Neither orientation has some innate advantage to becoming a good parent. And the sexes and orientation guarantees nothing.

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



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
In my mind, the ones doing the suppression of the truth is organized religions. They speak of tolerance and love and acceptance....but only if you are like them. And, they preach of negatives and blame and sin. So, basically, say one thing but do something different (speaking of tolerance but preaching intolerance).

It is ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. And, like I said earlier, I feel really sorry for the people who get sucked into organized religion and all of the hypocrisy and negativeness and BS it sometimes represents.

If God is the creator of all, then he created homosexuals, too. And, the golden rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Well, then shut up and respect them, tolerate them, wish them well, pray for their happiness. It is not like they are effecting your straight life (or mine) one way or the other. YOU are projecting that fear where there is nothing to be afraid of.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

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.



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...



Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
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.




Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 25-11-2008 by Gemwolf]






top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join