The Conspiracy To Twist Bible Verses To Suit Their Antigay Agenda - Romans 1:26-27

This is NOT a conspiracy! As a homosexual anti-theist with some semblance of awareness, I can tell you that it's common practice among over-zealous, religous preachers and anti-gay, sheepish baboons alike! ANYONE who interprets the bible to justify this kind of gluck is an IDIOT. End of discussion!

It is a common mistake among non-believers to try and pick apart the authenticity of the bible the way you are attempting to. The most frequent mistake is to mention that the Bible was “Created” by the Roman Catholic Church, normally they say under Constantine I during the Council of Nicaea. That is a dead giveaway of where their information came from, as the only place that the Council of Nicaea is ever related to the compiling of the Bible is in the fictional work “the DiVinci Code”.


21 of the 27 accepted books of the New Testament were already accepted by at least 180AD, thus Irenaeus use of them in his writing, “Against Heresies”. Against Heresies was written to battle Gnosticism which was already trying to creep into Christianity from Greek Mysticism by Irenaeus time.


Please note:

The word “Approved” is not the same as “chose”, “Decided”, “Created”, or “Wrote”. The fact that they “Approved” the cannon does not mean that there was not a cannon that was used up to that point, it simply means they gave their nods on which books belong in the final edition, so to speak. They gave the scriptures uniformity, and the fact that they took an extra two hundred years to make that decision shows that they took their time to research it throughly.

You are still incorrect about this making all Christians Catholic, while technically “Catholic” means “Universal”, it is more commonly used in specific reference to the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC, did not exist for almost another 1000 years after the synod of hippo. So trying to tell Christians that they are all “Catholics” is quite incorrect. “Catholicism” in modern day terminology refers to Roman Catholicism which resulted from the Great East-West Schism. You might as well be saying that we are all Orthodox Christians equally well as Catholic ones.

Roman Catholicism is rife with canonized Roman Paganism, which is why many Christians do not consider it to be a “Christian” religion. If you even ask a Catholic today, they equally base their beliefs on the Word of God, and Catholic tradition. Its the Catholic Tradition part that makes their “Christianity” questionable to many Christians, and why there are Protestant Faiths today.

reply to post by defcon5

---

I never said all christians are catholic and that is not my point - I am saying catholics are just as christian as any of you born-agains/evangelicals. You can interpret history as you like, but it is quite clear that the early church was "catholic" in nature, and the early catholic leaders chose what scriptures to be put in what you call the bible *which comes from Catholicism in the first place - the word "bible"* Ignore facts as much as you want, but there was not one specific "canon" at that point, which is why they had various Synods of Hippo - to determine which books warranted being in the bible.


"...By around 120 [AD], key features of Christianity had taken shape -
an organized priesthood..." (pg 349, The Romans From Village to Empire, Oxford University Press)

"Constantine did not invent Catholicism, he simply recognized it and let people legally be Christian. Christians were having "Catholic" Masses long before this "legalization" of Christianity. Three hundred years before Constantine, Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honoured Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today. Catholic means "universal.""
www.davidmacd.com...

A timeline of the Catholic Church from 1-500 A.D. is here
www.davidmacd.com...

You can hide behind your pretense that any information I have regarding the subject came from the Da Vinci Code - though I find this a completely stupid and useless thing to think. I have presented sources and information you obviously just passed over, in order to conveniently keep the veil over your own eyes. I never even mentioned Constantine, you just assumed that for some reason. I think your mindset would probably upset the billion+ followers of Roman Catholicism who don't agree with you, but I really don't even care. As before, I am not religious. You can bicker and argue away all you like, but it doesn't really bother me - it's rather funny to be honest. The very people who claim jesus is their lord and savior disrespect and reproach each other over assertions that are secondary at best. I won't bother replying after this because I have more important things to do...Good day sir

This is just incredibly incorrect, I am sorry to tell you. If you want to try and pick on Christianity, I think you should study it first. I cannot even imagine how anyone who is as studied on this topic as you are claiming to be, could confuse Paul with Peter. This is the verse that you are referring too:


Which is in Matthew (not Mark), and has Zero to do with the Roman Catholic Church of today, other then the claim laid on it by Roman Catholics Themselves. This holds no more credibility then me claiming that I am superman because my initials have an “S” in them. Read on if you want to learn the truth on this, and part of the reason why some folks do not believe that the RCC is a Christian faith...

Peter was in fact the first bishop of Rome, that is the Church that Christ is talking about, and it existed almost 1000 years before the Roman Catholic Church of Today. Catholics CLAIM Peter to be the first Roman Catholic Pontiff, but as I am about to show you, I find that claim to be highly suspect.

The term Pontiff is MUCH older then the Roman Catholic Church, in fact it goes back to the Roman Empire. The term was known as Pontifex Maximus, and was the person charged with running the numerous Pagan religions of Rome. The title Pontifex was normally granted to the Emperor, though occasionally he would surrender the title to a Roman Senator or other high ranking Roman.

In Peters time, the Pontifex Maximus was Nero, the man who put Peter to death. Now, do you honestly think that Peter would have accepted the title held by the very man who killed him? Do you honestly think that Peter would have considered someone titled Pontiff an acceptable person to be running Christs Church? The man who was sending Christians into the arena to be tortured, and slaughtered by the thousands? The guy who would have parties with Christians burning on stakes as the torches for light? Obviously not! Yet that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church claims.

So how did the Bishop of Rome become the Holy Pontiff?

That would be due to two people. The first was Emperor Gratian, who refused to hold the title of Pontifex Maximus as, “unbefitting a Christian”:

But there was also, at the same time, a rather crooked Bishop of Rome, Damasus I, who took the discarded title, and became the first “Christian” Pope (Pontiff). The Roman Catholic Church to this day claims the line of Popes back through Peter, the first “Bishop of Rome”, by backdating that title to all the Bishops of Rome before Damasus. There is no way that Peter would have accepted the title that was once held by Nero.

Many believe that the “Little Horn” in the book of Daniel, which some refer to as Antichrist of Jesuit Futurism, actually refers to the station of the Pontifex Maximus, and I tend to agree. The Pontifex Maximus was charged with: Punishing heretics, setting the Religious and Seasonal Calendar, and setting Jus Divinum or divine law, later the Popes would claim to speak with Papal Infallibility.

Sound like this:


It sure does to me...
You still think that Peter wold have accepted the title of Pope, and laid claim to being the head of the Roman Catholic Church?

[edit on 7/27/2009 by defcon5]

reply to post by makinho21

---

Catholics are not Christian. I'm a Christian but I don't pray to Mary, I don't pray to the patron saints, I believe Christ's death was enough for salvation and that good works are performed because of salvation and not for salvation, and I don't have to confess my sins to a priest, only God.

If something isn't in the Bible we aren't supposed to follow it. Catholicism teaches things that aren't in the Bible, therefore those teachings are false and shouldn't be followed.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by makinho21

---

That could be argued because if you ask even a Catholic, they admit that they base their beliefs on the Bible and Tradition. Basically you can swap the word “tradition” with “Pagan practices of the Roman Empire”, and it would be just about dead on the money.


Here is a timeline of the Church:

You see the red line? you see how far back it starts? That is the Catholic Church...


The main Gospels were all included well before Hippo, and as I have stated several times, 21 of the 27 books were already taught. Irenaeus of Lyons was taught by Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp was taught directly by John the Apostle. There were other men around in that time who had been directly taught by the original Apostles as well, Ignatius of Antioch disciple of John the Apostle, and Clement of Rome ordained by Saint Peter as the Bishop or Rome. You think that these fellows did not know which writings should have been used as canon and already were using those books? I believe that the writings of Irenaeus show us otherwise. They simply were not compiled into one tome at that time.


Here is your first problem. You need to stop using Roman Catholic Sources as your study material if you want to learn the truth about anything. The problem with Roman Catholic sources is that they are more concerned with honoring Catholic Tradition then telling factual history. They have been known to twist, hide, or even outright lie about certain historical events. They have darn good reason to as well. First off, all their dogma has to be in agreement with the Infallible ramblings of various Popes throughout history. Second, they require a direct line connection back to Peter to prove the authority of the Pope, even if none exists. They wish to hide the source of many of their teachings, and how they have twisted teachings throughout the years to control their members (even to control the whole of Europe up until modern times). Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible to this day as the Church considers them to be unqualified to understand what they are reading. The truth is though, that they have to know all the legalese of Catholic dogma because if you just read the bible in itself most of their tradition shows up as being Pagan and non-Biblical. Back in the old times, the fastest way to end up in front of the Inquisition was to own, translate, or write a copy of the bible. Why do you think that is?


There used to be an old joke.
Catholics don't read the Bible, because as soon as they do they become Protestants.


Yes, I am sure it would, but that does not make it true. There are many who are afraid to leave the Roman Catholic Church, because they use their twisting of scripture to make remarks such as: “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. The RCC is the one time that I will agree when people talk about religion being used to control the masses.

reply to post by defcon5

---

Hahaha yea my bad - that is what I meant, I obviously effed that one up. Anyways I was just referring to the passage you spoke of. That is Catholicism's claim to the church of Jesus. You say otherwise - good for you. As far as I'm concerned you and your catholic compatriots are at a stand-off. I think I've been at this for a little too long (case in point the blunder you are referring to). I said I wouldn't bother replying, but I had to after you pointed that.
Anyways I used Catholic sources because they obviously have explanations/answers to the issues and questions you posed that help their cause.No doubt they are bias, but that was the point. I see no problem in using such a source when you present arguments that oppose them. Toteneke or whatever his name is seems determined to get bent up about things Catholics do that really don't seem all that important. I guess I wouldn't understand because I think all of you are mislead, but to me Catholics worshiping Mary doesn't take away from them being Christian. Or having a pope or worshiping the cross JC "died" on. Again, you see differently. It seems as if it really just comes down to personal interpretation.
Just like everything else in the bible. Anyways now I will bid you adieu and go read something interesting. Religion is old news

reply to post by makinho21

---

Worshipping Mary is a sin; it's idolatry. We're supposed to only pray to God.



The Bible is very clear and Catholicism definitely isn't in it.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by Totakeke

---

Are you saying you don't sin yourself? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If you are Christian you believe that as well. I would expect the teachings of Jesus would be more important than the 10 commandments but whatever. For sake of argument I will accept that worshiping Mary is a sin. Ok...so what. They still believe in Jesus above all other "idols" and works and celebration and everything else you list as 'unchristian'. No Catholic thinks the Pope is more important or divine than Jesus. Jesus is still their saviour.
If your only complaint is they "sin" - well you are a hypocrite. You can't say you don't "sin" yourself. So I hope that settles it (ofcourse it won't though). Most likely you will simply repeat the same statement over again like your last 10 or so responses. I thought this website was about denying ignorance, not hiding behind it.
Again let me reiterate - you can not say you have not sinned yourself. If your unlike of Catholics is due to them "sinning" as you say, then you are being very hypocritical, which undermines any argument you are trying to make - unless you stand beside "do as I say, not as I do" as well (that was a joke )

reply to post by makinho21

---

Of course I sin; everybody sins. Only Christ was sinless.



You don't know that, but neither do I. The only people whom know what the Pope means to them are those people themselves.



For one, I don't not like Catholics. Second, it's not their sin that makes Catholicism apostasy, it's that they teach things that aren't in the Bible. My main point is: if it's not in the Bible then it's not sound Christian doctrine.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by defcon5

---

Well said Defcon!
Why aren't you getting any stars?
hmmm,
Little flock indeed!

ICXC NIKA
helen

Emphasis on the word 'supposed'. You are not 'supposed' to do anything. As for idolatry, mumbling affirmations to a lady in blue is unwise imo, but if anyone considers this 'sinful', they need their heads checked...



The Bible isn't 'clear' about anything...

Interestingly there are no preserved ‘pronouncements’ placed into the mouth of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. ‘Iesous’) in the Canonical Nicene Council Approved Greek Gospels on ‘homosexuality’ (a word not coined until 1892); we have far more words placed into the Rabbi’s mouth on the subject of Divorce, which he forbade far beyond his predecessors (e.g. R. Shammai and R. Hillel), e.g. ‘You have heard it taught that he who would divorce his wife, let him write up a bill of Divorcement (Aram. "keriytutah’), but I say to you, he who divorces his wife in order to remarry, commits adultery’ which in those days carried the death penalty--yet how many ‘Christians’ are divorced these days ! Also curious is that although Saul of Tarsus (a ‘Greek Speaking, non Palestininan Jew’) wrote vehemently condemning homosexuality as ‘against nature’ in several of the ‘epistles’ under his name, he never met R. Yehoshua (‘Iesous’) ‘in the flesh’,only in ‘dreams and visions’ -- like my cook—Paul’ is not a reliable source for anything ref: the original ‘Nazorean’ teaching of ‘Iesous’ on this subject -- Christians do not have a leg to stand on ref: ‘homo’s being ‘against the teachings of Iesous’/Jesus’ when there is no evidence to support that claim at all in the Greek Gospels.

We do possess in the Greek 4th gospel a story of ‘a disciple whom Iesous loved’ (the noun is masculine, despite Dan Brown !) reclining at dinner ‘upon the breast’ of his teacher (!) sharing whispers at the ‘last supper’ (meant to parallel the homo-erotic relationship between David and Jonathan in the OT apparently, see 1 Sam 20:30 & 2 Sam 1:14-25 (cf: the Son of David with another Jonathan/Yohanon) as well that ‘other’ unmentionable story (Luke 7:1-10, repeated in Matt 8:5-13) which most translations would rather just not translate: i.e. ‘The Story of the Centurion’s Boy-Lover being Cured of a Fever-Daemon’. Most American translations of this awkward story use the word ‘servant’ for the Greek PAIS (‘boy-slave’ / ‘male sex partner’ in the Hellenistic world, even in towns around the Galilee (haGilgal haGoyim, lit. ‘the Circle of Gentiles’) which were heavily influenced by Greco-Roman customs in the 1st century AD.) The Koine Greek word for Slave/servant is DOULOS not PAIS, the latter of which often carried sex-slave connotations, typically a male aged 13-18.

Here is the text of Luke 7:1-10 1 Now when he had finished uttering his sayings amongst the crowds [Iesous] re-entered Kephar-Nahum, and 2. lo, there was a certain Centurion's serving-boy, whom he loved to distraction, who lay dying of a fever-daemon. 3 And when he heard of the fame of Iesous, he sent messages to the Elders among them, begging him that he would come to cast the fever-daemon out of him. 4 And behold, they approach Iesous, and began to plead with him insistently, saying, Amen, Rabbi, you should perform this Mitzvah for him, for he is worthy of the Life: he loves the Nation and even paid for the building of our Synagogue 6. So Iesous went with them as far as the outer court of the house until the friends of the Centurion who had been sent by him approached him, saying, Teacher, do not proceed any further: for I am [ritually unclean and] not worthy that you should come under my roof. 7 Only recite the Spell that will cure my serving boy of the fever-daemon. 8 For lo, I also am a man placed under authority who has soldiers under my power and when I say to one of them, Go, he goes; and to another, Come, he comes; and when I say to my servants, Do this or that, they do it. 9 And when Iesous heard these words of his, he was startled & turned to tell the Presbuteroi of the Temple following: Amen I have not found so great a faith, no, not even in Eretz-Yisro’el ! 10 And the messengers returned to the house to find his serving boy cured of his fever-daemon.

Yeah it is -sort of. The reason being, is that there now seems to be a growing movement to 'prove' that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality. That is patently false. The 'conspiracy' lies in the attempt (coordinated or not) to make the assertion that what mainstream believers have subscribed to, for millennia, is an obvious untruth. That can have the effect of destabilizing an established belief; once believers start to question one tenet then they may start to question all the others.
Again, I am not a believer. But just as I don't have to be a member of the Klan to know that they don't support black people, I don't have to be a born-again evangelical or Hassidim to know that the Bible does not condone homosexuality - in any way. Show me a passage that says it's ok.



Paul, Tertullian, Maimonides and Aquinas , amongst others, were "IDIOTS"? At least compared to you, right? Those fools couldn't read a scripture correctly - apparently. We all know the famous Bible passages where it says, "For a man to know a man as a woman is blessed" or "The people of Sodom were glorified in the eyes of the Lord because they lay with a man as woman without thought." Yeah, those are my favorite passages. Too bad all those "IDIOTS" and their millions of followers never read those parts...What the heck were they reading (derisive snort)?

Again, show me a quote that directly supports homosexuality in the Bible and I'll believe you. Otherwise, please refrain from calling people "IDIOTS" who can understand what they read.

You may not accept it as just or right - but it is what it is. Please don't try to pretend otherwise.

reply to post by passenger

---

I can't seem to find those verses anywhere. From which books in the Bible are they?

Dammit! I should have known that some wag (like you!) was gonna' play the straight man on that. Thanks for the laugh!

Seriously though, I think it was Revelations or The Book of (edited). That has all the answers to everything in it.

Two quick points:

1) I would appreciate it if you could extrapolate a bit on your belief that the term 'Pontiff' and it's current use to refer to Peter has any relevance.

I don't believe that the Catholic Church claims that the term 'Pontiff' was used by the ECF. It may very well be that Peter did not and would not use that term. It being an anachronism wouldn't mean that someone in the tenth century didn't occupy the same position as Peter.

I believe that the Church does teach that the Bishop of Rome has always been successor of Peter, who was established as the head of the Church by Christ, regardless of the terms used to refer to him.

2) I don't think that Peter would object to anyone calling him Pope, especially as it has nothing to do with the term 'Pontiff'.

Eric

[edit on 27-7-2009 by EricD]

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more. I'm glad that you are in agreement with the Catholic Church as they teach that worship of Mary would be a sin.

Catholics do not worship Mary.


Eric

Hmm. I still can't seem to find them.