LIES, DAMN LIES, AND APOSTATES- Part II A Message To Mr. Fearon of The Sex Screens

by PublishingCult 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  kurtbethel

  "A Ho Mo Sec Shoe Al Act" properly rolled off the tongue.

  Okay, yeah the art does look a bit campy and frolicky. As someone who has camped and frolicked, not complaining. Just saying.
• 

  mouthy

  "Oh the gift that God had give us to see ourselves as others see us "
• 

  koolaid-man

  I must say PublishingCult spent a lot of time producing this video about The Six Screens March 12, 2011 conference call. The call lasted approximately five hours and many people called in and we discussed a number of topics. For reasons we will not bring up,the nude picture that appeared in the 1927 Watchtower publication "CREATION" and which we brought up on this conference call deeply disturbed PuplishingCult. He takes a few sound bites and attempts to persuade his viewers that all the information coming of The Six Screens is inaccurate and not to be trusted. He mentions The Freeminds website and I agree with him ,it is an excellent source of information, one of the signs you see in this video of us protesting directs people to that site as well as others. All websites exposing the Watchtower Org. have their own flavor and are helping people see what the Org is hidding behind. As for those that call in, some do bring up some crazzy thoughts but because they bring it up does not mean I am in agreement with them. PC it would have been good to hear from you on this call everyone is given the oppotunity to call in. As for the controversial picture perhaps the artist was not suggesting a sexual act behind the cross of Jesus.... But the picture certainly does not settle well in the minds of many. The real issue is why would The Watchtower org. use it?

  IT'S EASY TO SEE THE CHIP ON PUBLISHING CULTS SHOULDER ........ He has a problem with CHRISTIANITY! ........

  1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version, ©2011) "GOD WROTE IT, I QUOTE IT."

  9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [a]

  Footnotes:

  1. 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

  READ FOR YOURSELF BELOW AND I THINK YOU WILL DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.

  PublishingCult

  My Motives For Denouncing Homophobia and Bigotryposted 3 days ago (3/29/2011)

  Post 413 of 471 Since 3/17/2010

  I just want to be clear on this. Some have attributed my motives for denouncing homophobia and bigotry to my being gay. Some have come to the conclusion that I must be gay for shouting down the homophobes and bigots on this board. Am I gay? Moot point. There was a time, thanks to religion and the Bible, that I denounced homosexuality as perverted, immoral, unnatural, and an abomination. I held the belief that if homosexuality was indeed innate, it was a disease akin to down-syndrome, a genetic defect caused from sin and imperfection. The only thing that would take it away was the New System of Things when we all got to be perfect and pet tigers while the little chinese girl played her violin and Jose and Maria picked fruit for the white people having a picnic by the edge of the lake. I speak out against the false teaching, that homosexuality is a choice, that it's immoral, that God hates fags, because it is a very destructive lie. Some very close to me who were gay have perished from this world, made sick and despondent from this false teaching, plunging into self-loathing and destructive behavior that had nothing to do with their sexuality, but everything to do with the guilt inflicted upon them by ignorant fanatical Christians who just accept at face value what the Bible SEEMS to be saying about homosexuality. Why should they bother to research historical context, language text translation, and interpretation when they are reading the Scriptures from a heterosexual point of view and rest easily, arrogantly, and conveniently in their heterosexual identity, so pure, so shiny, so righteous in God's eyes because of who they f#ck? Absurdity. Homosexuals are different. Gay men are effeminate and speak with syllibant S's, like to dress nice, and interior decorate. They do stuff sexually with each other. Let's get a rope and find a strong tree limb. Because of this ignorant erroneous teaching from the Bible, many gay teens take their own lives to escape the bitter pain and guilt, the disapproval from friends and family . . . and from this imaginary god, this feckless thug. Homophobes all over the world use this false teaching as an excuse to hate, persecute, beat and murder homosexuals. And even if the teaching hadn't come from slanted language text translation and erroneous interpretation of Scripture, and the shunning of historical context, we know this doctrine is wrong because of James 3:17: "But the wisdom from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, not making partial distinctions, not hypocritical." The persecution of homosexuals negates the peaceable fruit and the fruitages of God's Spirit, which is "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. . . . " (Galatians 5:22-23). The belief itself bares an excuse for Christians to commit sin, and justify their lack of love. It, therefore, can only be a lie. So, am I gay? I am pro-gay, pro equal rights, pro humanity. I am an atheist, a practical anarchist, rational and reasonable. While putting a penis in my mouth might label me for life, and while suspecting I am gay might give one justification for thinking I am partial to the agenda, lol, and just want to promote a perverted lifestyle, and somehow invalidate my argument against their hate, it's none of your damn business.
• 

  bohm

  READ FOR YOURSELF BELOW AND I THINK YOU WILL DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.

  what is your conclusion rick? what is it you want to say? afraid to speak your own mind all of a sudden and has to rely on innuendo?
• 

  Satanus

  Conclusion: it's nonya bizness.

  S
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Now he's just using these threads for advertising his brand of hatred and bigotry. Is there no shame in Christicality?
• 

  bohm

  Rick, are you willing to debate the merits of the OT on this forum which PC and others call into question, or are you simply going to quote your silly book and run away without having the guts to defend your superstitions?
• 

  PublishingCult

  First of all, I just want to reiterate how you, Mr. Fearon, are a two-faced disingenuous carnival sideshow hawker. @ 1:51 in the video below, you assign responsibility for the research to your own wife.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJQlnyqHYU4

  Then, you throw your own callers under the bus.

  As for those that call in, some do bring up some crazzy thoughts but because they bring it up does not mean I am in agreement with them.

  Sure, Mr. Fearon. You rattled their cages, got them all worked up over the homo-sex mischaracterization, let them spout off carrying torches and pitch forks for fags, then you denounce "some of them" as having crazy thoughts that you do not agree with. Which parts do you not agree with?

  God wrote it, you quote it? LOL, how utterly quaint. That little turn of phrase, as clever as it is not, does not take responsibility off of you and other Christians for promulgating your hateful destructive belief based on erroneous language text translation of the Bible and all-too important historical text that should harmonize with interpretation. You cannot just ring and run, Mr. Fearon. You don't get to just toss out a bible passage and go running away to hide. You are morally soft.

  Again, your hateful destructive belief based on erroneous language text translation of the Bible and all-too important historical text that should harmonize with interpretation.

  Do you not ever let anything in, Mr. Fearon?

  " Because of this ignorant erroneous teaching from the Bible, many gay teens take their own lives to escape the bitter pain and guilt, the disapproval from friends and family . . . and from this imaginary god, this feckless thug. Homophobes all over the world use this false teaching as an excuse to hate, persecute, beat and murder homosexuals. And even if the teaching hadn't come from slanted language text translation and erroneous interpretation of Scripture, and the shunning of historical context, we know this doctrine is wrong because of James 3:17: "But the wisdom from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, not making partial distinctions, not hypocritical." The persecution of homosexuals negates the peaceable fruit and the fruitages of God's Spirit, which is "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. . . . " (Galatians 5:22-23). The belief itself bares an excuse for Christians to commit sin, and justify their lack of love. It, therefore, can only be a lie."

  Your belief harmonizes with neither love nor peaceable fruit. It can only be incorrect, therefore.

  There was a time when most Christians believed slavery was the will of God. There was a time when most Christians believed women should not be allowed to vote. There was a time when most Christians believed that interracial marriage was wrong. Each position was elaborately supported with biblical arguments — and each position, we can now clearly see, was dead wrong.

  We now understand that cultural prejudice was at work shaping the way these Christians read the Bible. It is essential, for those of us who seek to know and follow the will of God in all we do, that we learn about the errors in our history so that we never those mistakes again. Precious lives are at stake, and we simply can’t afford to be so wrong again.

  Let's break 1Corinthians 6:9 down from its original greek.

  

  The first thing that should catch your attention is the seeming redundancy in this verse. Why would Paul write, neither fags, neither fags . . . will inherit God's Kingdom?

  For a thinking person, this should in the very least raise an eyebrow and cause one to question the accuracy of the translation and its intepretation. Something is not right here.

  First there is the reference to “effeminate” persons, which is often viewed as a reference to nelly gay men. In truth, however, the Greek word translated “effeminate” in verse 9 is quite broad. The word is malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” So Paul is saying “soft people” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

  It is important to understand the difference between ancient and modern notions of what makes one effeminate. Paul wasn’t condemning men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to be manly or womanly was quite different from today. First-century Romans didn’t think of effeminacy as merely a homosexual trait. In that culture, any man who was more interested in pleasure than in duty was considered to be woman-like. And men who worked to make themselves more attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women, were called effeminate.”

  This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage, in which case, the world "malakoi" may very well apply to you, Mr. Fearon. The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. In the patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and more vain. Thus, men who ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as “effeminate.”

  Since malakoi was used to refer to men who exhibited the negative traits associated with women in first-century culture, it’s not hard to see how the term might also be used to refer to male prostitutes, which is in no way a blanket condemnation of homosexuality itself, just as "female prostitute" is not a blanket condemnation of heterosexuals. They would be viewed as sexually indulgent (a trait associated with women) and as the ones who played a receptive role in intercourse (again, associated with women). Because here Paul uses malakoi in a list of sexual sins, it is possible to infer that he may have been referring specifically to male prostitutes, rather than soft men in general.

  However, regardless of whether Paul intended to refer specifically to male prostitutes or more generally to all men considered morally soft, it is apparent that the term malakoi has nothing to do with the question we bring to Scripture. We are not defending prostitution, nor vanity or self-indulgence. Our question is whether same-sex couples may live in loving, committed relationships with the blessing of God. The term malakoi does not address that.

  The next key phrase in this passage is rendered in the King James Version as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” A similar phrase appears in a list of sins in I Timothy 1:10. Both phrases are derived from a single Greek word, arsenokoitai, which is quite rare. In fact, these two biblical references may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time. Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost forever. However, some scholars have worked hard to make an educated guess. Arsenokoitai is a combination of two existing words, one meaning “bed” and referring to sex, and another meaning “male.” Thus, some scholars surmise the term has something to do with male sexual expression — perhaps exclusive male sexual expression, since no woman is mentioned.

  A goodway to understand what Paul may have meant by arsenokoitai is to look for other instances of the word in the subsequent writings of his time. This approach yields several telling facts. First, two early church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior extensively, Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, never used the word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in their writing, but only in places where they appear to be quoting the list of sins found in 1 Corinthians 6, not in places where they discuss homosexuality. This suggests they did not believe Paul’s term referred to homosexual behavior.

  A similar pattern is found in other writings of the time. There are hundreds of Greek writings from this period that refer to homosexual activity using terms other than arsenokoitai. If Paul had intended to refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of the partners in gay-male sex, he had other commonly-used, well-known words at his disposal. He wouldn’t have had to resort to this ambiguous compound word, which future generations would find difficult to translate. Apparently Paul was trying to refer to some more obscure type of behavior.

  This conclusion is reinforced by a survey of the actual uses of arsenokoitai in Greek literature. Scholars have identified only 73 times this term is used in the six centuries after Paul. (There are no known instances before Paul.) In virtually every instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context to shed light on its meaning. There are, however, a few helpful exceptions. In one instance, a Greek author uses the term when cataloguing the sins of the Greek gods. In this context, the term is probably intended to refer to the time Zeus abducted and raped a young boy, Ganymede. Arsenokoitai is also used in an ancient legend in which the snake in the Garden of Eden is said to have become a Satanic figure named Naas. Naas uses a variety of means (including sleeping with both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy them. In this story, Naas is said to have gone to Adam and had him like a boy. Naas’ sin is called arsenokoitai. These examples suggest that arsenokoitai refers to instances when one male uses his superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another, whether gay or straight.

  This premise is reinforced by yet another translation technique. As noted above, most of the times when arsenokoitai is used in early Greek literature, it occurs in a list of sins (just like in 1 Corinthians 6). Common experience tells us list-makers tend to group similar items together. (When Tyler makes a grocery list, he puts the vegetables at the top, the dairy at the bottom, and everything else in-between.) In these lists, arsenokoitai is often placed at the end of the list of sex sins and the beginning of the list of economic sins or vice versa. For example, in 1 Corinthians 6, we find it between malakoi (which may refer to male prostitutes) and “thieves.” In I Timothy 1:10, the word appears between “fornication” and “slave traders.” This is consistent with the meaning suggested above — that arsenokoitai describes a male who aggressively takes sexual advantage of another male. Examples of this type of behavior would include a man who rapes another (as in the Sodom story or the story of Zeus and Ganymede) or a man who uses economic power to buy sex from a male prostitute who sells his body to survive. This latter example is an especially neat fit if malakoi is understood to be a reference to the prostitute, in which case Paul’s list would include a reference both to the male prostitute (malakoi) and the man who takes advantage of the prostitute (arsenokoitai). This type of person is a close kin to the thief and the greedy — the two Greek words that most often follow arsenokoitai in the lists of sins.

  A thief, a greedy person, and one who uses power to obtain sex are all seizing something that does not rightfully belong to them.

  Thus, we conclude that aresenokoitai is best understood as a reference to men who force themselves sexually on others. This conclusion is consistent with the New Revised Standard Version, the English translation of the Bible often regarded as most scholarly. The New Revised Standard Version translates arsenokoitai as “sodomite.” As we have already seen, the men of Sodom were the ultimate example of sexual aggression and oppression. Even the New International Version, a more conservative English translation, appears to have been uncomfortable translating aresenokotai as a general reference to homosexuality. Instead, in 1 Corinthians 6 they translate the term as “homosexual offender,” suggesting that to commit the sin referred to here one must use homosexuality in an aggressive or offensive way.

  Finally, there is one more approach for finding the meaning of an obscure word relevant to this kind of discussion. Etymology is an attempt to trace the origins of a word — not just its component parts or uses after it was created, but where the word originally came from. For a word as old as arsenokoitai, doing etymological research is often quite speculative, but some scholars have pointed out that the two Greek words scrunched together to form this new word appear next to each other (as separate words) in Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint. From this, they gather that the word was created by people familiar with this passage, and that Paul was probably referring to the same behavior prohibited by Leviticus 20:13.

  Leviticus 20:13 was written in the context of cultic sexual practices, including temple prostitution. In Romans we see that Paul was addressing homosexual behavior that occurred in similar cultic situations, where people had abandoned the one true God to worship pagan idols. If Paul derived the term arsenokoitai from Leviticus 20:13 (and that’s a big if), it would follow that Leviticus 20 and Romans 1 would provide the best evidence of the type of homosexual behavior he was intending to prohibit, i.e., cultic sexual practices.

  Given the existing state of the literary evidence, it is impossible to know whether Paul was intending to refer to Leviticus 20 or was using the term arsenokoitai more broadly to refer to a man who aggressively forces himself on another. But it is not necessary to resolve that question. It is sufficient to note that Paul’s terminology manifestly does not address the type of behavior we are asking about — two people of the same sex who love each other dearly and live in committed relationship.

  CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

  LANGUAGE TEXT TRANSLATION

  PRACTICAL INTERPRETATION AND MEANING

  The above information with references can be found here. Before anyone dismisses the above information off hand as simply the work of someone promoting "the gay agenda", lol, whatever that might be, I bid you read, research, verify.

  PC
• 

  bohm

  Quiztime, when will Rick reply:

  • When hell freeze over
  • When he come back to make another snide remark and run away
  • When he come back to plug his show again

  with rick, you just never know. He is a man of mystery! :-).