Watchtower views on Homosexuality

by ttm1988 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ttm1988

  Thank you all for your replies.

  I did mean to reply sooner, but the forum isnt very Smartphone friendly so I have to wait until I am at work. I wasnt just starting yet another gay topic, and then disappearing from the scene. I will continue to post on the times I am able to.

  I liked the point about two brothers marrying in a State where it was legal. What could they be disfellowshipped for? It would be seen as homophobic, and the Watchtower would have a sticky situation to deal with if the two brothers decided to pursue legal action.

  One thing that I never understood is the absolute hatred of gays I see in some Christians, based on a handful of Scriptures *(where the original meanings are dubious and open to interpretation) yet people forgetting, or not placing as much emhasis on other sins such as drinking, revilery, and adultery. It is all so very odd. I do hope one day we move to a point where homophobia is seen as serious as racism within religion. However, if that happens is anyones guess.
• 

  cantleave

  ttm, I think we will see that happening at least in western / secular countries. How long it'll take is the question, maybe not in my life time, but things are changing.

  Religion and theistic belief is losing it's grip on people as we become more and more enlightened and educated by scientific discovery. I think eventually western governments, at least, will realise there is no justification for religious intolerance and bigotory and homophobic behaviour will be stamped out.
• 

  Room 215

  It's my impression that a fair number of rank-and-file JWs are much more tolerant on this issue than the company line calls for; there also seems to be a sort of unspoken acceptance of celibate JWs among them.
• 

  Searril

  How do you know the past thinkers that came up with the "currently accepted meaning" are correct?

  It (Romans) seems pretty self-explanatory to me, but I am definitely willing to listen if someone can show me the traditional understanding is incorrect. I assumed that you agreed about the meaning as well or you wouldn't have skipped it when we were discussing the other verses.

  (BTW, if by "other cultural references" you mean things like rape then that's a discussion that's already been beaten to death again and again and has been shown that the word rape did not necessarily have the same meaning as it does now, so I don't see the point in wasting my time repeating what's already been shown so many times. Even a few hundred years ago rape did not necessarily mean sexual violence.)
• 

  matt2414

  ttm1988: I sent you a personal message regarding your concerns about homosexuality.

  Searril: I have a question for you: What exactly is self-explanitory about Romans? Some heterosexuals read Romans 1:26-27, for instance, and immediately assume it's referring to homosexuality. Yet, gays who read it know that it is impossible for it to be referring to them. Why is that? What do gays know about homosexuality that heterosexuals don't? But getting back to basics, what exactly is Paul referring to in those verses? What was happening in that congregation that prompted him to write the Christians there? Once you can explain in detail what happened in the Roman congregation, then you can attempt to make an application today. Otherwise, it is extremely dangerous to interpet the verses there without understanding them completely. As Peter stated at 2 Peter 3:16: "[Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
• 

  mP

  perhaps the first q to ask about romans 1:26-27, is what does it really mean. it seems to condemn homosexuality, but it does say homosexuality, it could be talking about other things men do without women and kids. in the ancient world there were loys of man only activities like decision making, government, war and so on. the next part mentions men not using women for what is natural. does this mean only sex must be for only reproduction, and pleasure is wrong because it is a waste ?
• 

  transhuman68

  LOL, Welcome ttm1988. The Witnesses will never change- they are a high-control group; not a religion, so to be exclusive, some people have to be excluded- despite what they may say, they do not want to convert everybody. A mainstream church might be more welcoming....

  Here's part of an explanation from http://johnshelbyspong.com/ John Shelby Spong:

  You need to “explain” that condemnatory passages in the Pauline corpus arise from the fact that culturally anything in the Bible has been called “The Word of God” and thus invested with enormous authority. God did not write the two epistles you cite, Paul did and Paul was a very fallible first century human being. Paul reflected cultural attitudes that no one today considers valid with regard to the institution of slavery, the role and place of women, and the meaning of homosexuality. So quoting Paul to justify slavery makes about as much sense as quoting Paul to justify negativity toward gay and lesbian people.

  The facts are, [ ], that modern science and medicine have firmly established that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, that homosexuality is neither abnormal nor unnatural; it is only a minority expression within the human family, like being left handed. No one can cause another to become homosexual nor can anyone’s sexual orientation be changed by another or by any therapeutic process that uninformed people continue to suggest. Those attitudes are simply ignorant and those who still parrot them or suggest them should be prosecuted for seeking to practice medicine without a license.
• 

  Chariklo

  They have always stated that the practice be condemned not the person, but I have never known a gay person be treated as anything more than out cast. I have never seen a gay person being appointed an MS or an Elder, even when they are exemplary in conduct.

  Cantleave, in the local congregation here there are a number of gay men, but not actively so now. Elders have told me of this, and done so almost proudly, showing how people are willing to change and give up their previous wicked ways.

  Meanwhile, the ex-gays...yes, i do know who at least some of them are...operate the sound and the camera system for the car park etc. Being naturally cynical, I can't help but wonder if they're all as "ex" as the elders think, but of course they may be, because they all seem throughly indoctrinated and so would have the fear of Jehovah's wrath...

  But David was screwing Jonathan...

  Supposition, mP, not proved.
• 

  matt2414

  mP: where is there any mention of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27? I just read it again for the umpteenth time and I don't see it. As I mentioned above, gays and heterosexuals view this verse from two different perspectives. For example, gays know absolutely that homosexuality is not a choice. If sexuality is a choice for gays then it must be a choice for straights. But it isn't a choice for straights is it? Now it's true there are some who are bisexual and can go either way, and there are confused individuals who haven't determined what they are. But for genuine gays and straights there is no choice.

  With that in mind, consider what Romans 1:26-27 says again. It says that women and men in that congregation ignored their natural sexuality and began having same-sex relations. In other words, Paul wasn't speaking about homosexuals, rather HETEROSEXUALS. Wow! Understanding this verse this way changes everything. But wait, what would cause heterosexuals to engage in same-sex orgies? It's right there in the context. Paul was writing about those who left the worship of God for the worship of idols. (see verses 23 and 25.) Same-sex acts in idol worship was not uncommon among some in the realm of the Roman Empire, which had swept up people of various backgrounds and Pagan persuasions as it extended its reach while conquering other lands.

  This is the strongest "proof" some religionists have for their anti gay rhetoric, and yet when you realize it has nothing to do with homosexuals, nothing in the scriptures remain to uphold such hate and intolerance. Unlike some who say homosexuality is the biggest sin in the Bible, I see the worst sin as idolatry. What do you think? :)
• 

  Phizzy

  Right from the beginning of the Bible condemnation of homosexuality per se is hard to prove.

  Just as an example, the men who wished to have relations with Lot's angelic visitors are not considered by Lot to be homosexual, he offers his daughters, so the crime of these lustful men is not actually their sexuality, or even what they wanted to do, it is that they wished to break the law of hospitality, which said that any guest in your house would be safe from any harassment.

  The bigots within various religions today are an anachronistic bunch of dinosaurs, they wish to interpret texts their way to enforce their narrow view, we have it at the moment in the England, where same sex marriage is being debated.

  Even if you do wish to try to live by the core values in a two to three thousand year old collection of books, you have to recognise that times change, morals change, for the better in fact, we don't endorse slavery any more, Paul did.

  Our knowledge increases, and for those of us who are non-believers, our compassion increases with that knowledge, but the old bible thumpers wish to be as prejudiced and intolerant as they can get away with by twisitng scripture to support their nasty views.