Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible (page 3)

MeanMrMustard

@frankiespeakin:

Right, does this include anyone not "accepting" of gays? So if I were to think that being gay is wrong, then I must be a homophobe?

MMM

That might be correct, that and the degree of how far you take your judgements of persons of a different sexual persuasion, the remarks you make and the actions you take against those considered "homosexuals".

MeanMrMustard

You wrote:

'That might be correct, that and the degree of how far you take your judgements of persons of a different sexual persuasion, the remarks you make and the actions you take against those considered "homosexuals".'

I see. Is there some sort of objective way of knowing when these boundaries have been passed? For example, if I take my judgements so far as to *think* that a homosexual is "sinning" and is "leading an immoral life", is that "homophobic"? What if I say what I believe? The "degree" you speak of, it seems purely subjective.

Bringing it back to my original point, surely if Paul was "homophobic", a gay Christian(or pro-gay Christian) would necessarily have to reject Paul. If so, does that gay Christian (or pro-gay Christian) reject all of Pauls letters too?

MMM

frankiespeakin

Just because Paul heard some voices in his head doesn't mean he's inspired from almight God and what he says is gospel truth. Paul had a life changing vision on the Damascus Road, their is no reason to conclude that his self proclaimed authority issued from God. Paul was a fanatic for his own veiwpoints un willing to reason otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

The Conversion of Paul the Apostle , was, according to the New Testament , an event that took place in the life of Paul the Apostle which led him to cease persecuting early Christians and to become a follower of Jesus . It is normally dated by researchers to AD 33–36. [1] [2] [3] The phrases Pauline conversion , Damascene conversion and Damascus Christophany , and road to Damascus allude to this event.

uthor and theologian John Stott is of the opinion that Paul's conversion was gradual, and that the Damascus Road experience was the climax of his conversion. Stott bases this theory on Acts 26:14 : "...it is hard for you to kick against the goads". The inference is that God had pricked Paul's conscience at the stoning of Stephen—protomartyr of Christianity—and possibly Stephen's trial. He believes Paul additionally was aware of and troubled by Jesus Christ's death, and that his subsequent resurrection was attested to by hundreds, fulfilling Old Testament scripture.

Paul's life before conversion [ edit ]

Before his conversion, Paul, then known as Saul, was a "zealous" Pharisee who "intensely persecuted" the followers of Jesus. Some scholars argue that Paul was a member of the "Zealot" party. Says Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians:

MeanMrMustard

@frankiespeakin:

You wrote:

Just because Paul heard some voices in his head doesn't mean he's inspired from almight God and what he says is gospel truth. Paul had a life changing vision on the Damascus Road, their is no reason to conclude that his self proclaimed authority issued from God. Paul was a fanatic for his own veiwpoints un willing to reason otherwise.

So Christians should reject Paul? Let me be clear - there are a couple different thoughts going through my posts. The first of which doesn't have much to do with your posts, but has a lot to do with the OP. In the opening post, the user stated that Jesus never said anything against homosexuals. Rather, it was Paul. This implies that perhaps Jesus was OK with homosexuals (or at least we don't know), and therefore implies that Christians should be more open to welcoming gay and lesbian men and women into the church. There are churches that do this, and there are gay Christians. To me, I have a hard time reconciling the two (homosexuality and Christianity). The only way I can see to reconcile the two is to basically give up one of the things that would make a Christian a Christian - bibical insiration/inerrancy. Once a Christian is willing to set aside the parts of Pauls letters that condemn homosexuality, why should any other portion be held sacred? I don't see a reason. I think you are approaching this from a perpective of athiesm - which is fine. However, for Christians, for those individiuals that claim to believe in the Bible as inspired, the statement in the OP (that Jesus never said anything against homosexuals) is meaningless.

I followed up with questions about your use of "homophobe" because I feel it is a subjective, overworked term with little meaning. This was separate from the comment on the OP.

MMM

Quendi

Thanks, besty, for the additional details about Leo Greenlees. The material you referenced also mentions Lyman Swingle as a possible molester. Can anyone shed more information about this? In any event, we do know that gay men have held posts in the highest levels of the organization. I suspect that is still the case.

I remember that I once swatted my judicial committee with this statistic. Suicide is the third-leading cause of death among young American men between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four. Many of these young men were gay. I went on to ask how many of them were young Witness men who had chosen suicide after being grilled by a judicial committee? For you must know that appearing before such a panel can be traumatic enough, but to be humiliated and assaulted by questions about sexual practices, positions and even whether or not orgasms occurred (as I was), or whether I engaged in bestiality compounds the fear and loathing many gay men feel already. Fortunately, I was in my forties when I faced the elders and I quickly turned the tables on them, exposing their ignorance and stupidity on any number of subjects--the scriptures included. I was fortunate; but I know of many others who were unable to defend themselves and were emotionally molested and raped by the false shepherds who too often take part in such hearings.

I thank Jehovah every day that I got out of this cult alive. Even so, it took me years to find my freedom, and I still wonder how the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Witnesses endure the suffocating evil of this cult's Governing Body. I can only hope that they will manage to escape as I and many others have already done.

Quendi

Oubliette

MeanMrMustard: This implies that perhaps Jesus was OK with homosexuals

It implies nothing of the kind.

Reading things that aren't there into what others say is such an annoying trait.

It is a fact: according to the gospels, Jesus didn't address the subject. What that means is clearly open to interpretation.

My opinion is that much of what is considered "Christianity" is an invention of Paul and not based solely on the alleged teachings of Jesus.

All that being said, my point is this: The entire bible only has a handful of direct references on the subjects. For every scripture addressing homosexuality there are roughly 4,500 on other subjects.

So why do the GB members spend a clearly disproportionate amount of time on this subject?

My guess is that some of them, Anthony Morris comes to mind, are battling their own homosexual urges and deal with it by demonizing it. It is clearly an obsession with them.

MeanMrMustard

@Oubliette:

It implies nothing of the kind.

Reading things that aren't there into what others say is such an annoying trait.

It is a fact: according to the gospels, Jesus didn't address the subject. What that means is clearly open to interpretation.

Fair enough.

My opinion is that much of what is considered "Christianity" is an invention of Paul and not based solely on the alleged teachings of Jesus.

Exactly. But that doesn't help out Christianity vs. Homosexuality. It seems that they still stand quite opposed to each other. Which leads into the next comment...

All that being said, my point is this: The entire bible only has a handful of direct references on the subjects. For every scripture addressing homosexuality there are roughly 4,500 on other subjects.

So why do the GB members spend a clearly disproportionate amount of time on this subject?

My guess is that some of them, Anthony Morris comes to mind, are battling their own homosexual urges and deal with it by demonizing it. It is clearly an obsession with them.

Do they really spend more time on it than other chruches? It just doesn't surprise me at all given the amount of news coverage given to homosexual-related stories. From gay marriage debates to Phil Robertson to DOMA, etc. It is always in the news, it seems. To me it makes a lot of sense that those Christians that do believe the Bible is inspired by God, including those books written by Paul, would give more sermons on the sins of homosexuality in increasing frequency.

Now, this doesn't mean the GB isn't fighting gay tendencies. They surely might.

MMM

Oubliette

MMM: Do they really spend more time on it than other churches?

Fair question I suppose, but I wouldn't know and frankly don't care.

This is, after all, JWN and not some non-demoninational Christian forum.

JW/WT has always tried to distinguish themselves as different/better/superior/more pure than the churches of Christendom, so what other churches do or do not do isn't really all that relevant.

Either way, the amount of time the GB devote to this subject is clearly disproportionate to the number of times it is mentioned in the Bible. That is a fact whether you believe the Bible is God's Word or not.

Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible

Paul's life before conversion [ edit ]

Share this