Today's "gay-bashing" and other embarrassing content public talk!

by stuckinarut2 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • matt2414

    25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created thing rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1)

    Apognophos: I appreciate your comments about Romans 1:26, 27, because I used to have a difficult time explaining it ... until I had my own self-realization that I am gay. Now when I read it, there are several red flags that stand out to me.

    First of all, what did Paul mean by "exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones"? For gay people, it's natural to have have relations with the same sex, it's something they can't change. Researchers have also found that same-sex bonding occurs naturally in animals. Even many plants are bisexual. But it's not natural for heterosexuals, so that appears to be whom Paul is referring to. Yes, Paul does say they are inflamed with "lust," but notice he doesn't use the word "love." A man may have relations with a prostitute, but that doesn't mean he loves her. I personally know about a dozen self-described God-fearing married, straight people (men and women) who at one time or another have had relations with someone of the same sex. They did so out of lust, not love. Today, they all self-identify as straight.

    Why would those in the Roman congregation do this? Paul answers that question in the beginning of verse 26 when he says, "Because of this." Because of what? Verse 25 explains: Because some members of the Roman congregation stopped worshiping God and went back to vernerating man-made idols. Those idol oftentimes required same-sex relations with temple prostitutes, both male and female. (By the way, drugs and other hallucinogens were sometimes used in worshiping idols; spiritism and druggery were closely related. This may have contributed to the "inflamed" "lust.")

    Remember, the stabilizing influence of the Jewish founding fathers on the congregation in Rome was gone. Emperor Claudius had expelled them (circa AD 49) along with all the rest of the Jews from Rome because of their constant fighting with the gentiles who lived there (see Acts 18:2). His edict remained in effect until Claudius' death in AD 54, which was sometime before Paul penned his letter to the Romans about AD 55. That means that the only members of the Roman congregation during that time were former worshipers of pagan idols. The expulsion could be one of the reasons Paul was unable to visit the congregation sooner. With the Jewish Christians gone, it's likely some of the gentile Christians (perhaps due to family pressure or lack of faith) returned to worshiping their old gods (remember the Israelites?), many of which required some form of sexual activity as a part of their worship.

    Romans 1:26, 27 makes much more sense when read in historical context. If the verse were referring to homosexuals, it would raise the question, "Why were there homosexuals in the congregation in the first place if God disproved of them?" Also, gay people having heterosexual relations would not be natural. After knowing what we do today about plants and animals, would homosexuality and bisexuality also be "unnatural" for them, after Paul glowingly describes creation at Romans 1:20? This entire passage falls apart if we try to view it as fundamentalists (including the Witnesses) view it today, because homosexuality was not viewed in the same way in the first century. It appears, from historical writings, that love and sex were viewed in a more tolerable manner. Infidelity and idolatry (for Christians), however, were strongly condemned. So it's important to consider ancient writings as they were viewed then, and not as misguided churches (including the Jehovah's Witnesses) try to apply them now.

  • Freedom77

    Just to throw in my 2 cents: as a gay man, when I became interested in religion again, ten years after leaving the borg, I researched for myself what the Bible had to say about "men who lie with men," etc., using worldly scholarship, Greek-English lexicons, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and so on.

    I know lots of people gay and straight who are believing Christians like to argue that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality as we know it today, and have come up with all sorts of ingenious arguments about "temple prositutes" and so forth that can't be objectively proven. But I disagree. I think some folks just don't want to admit that the Bible - and therefore, God - condemns gay people point-blank, but all my research pointed the other way. I think it does, and most emphatically.

    I don't want to get into the details of history and scripture, and anyone can do the same research I did. But if the patriarchal Jews and early Christians were really oh-so-accepting of adult, committed, loving, monogamous same-sex partners (and these did exist and were known in ancient Greek culture, at least) . . . where exactly is the evidence that any such persons flourished in either society? Hint: there is none, zero, zip, nada. "For such is what some of you were."

    It's much simpler and more rational to simply conclude, as I did, that Moses (as putative author of the Torah) and Paul (as putative author of much of the New Testament) were simply wrong to condemn, as from the mouth of God, all homosexual acts and relationships. Just as they or whoever actually wrote in their names were wrong to subject women to men, and to condone slavery, rape of virgins captured in war, and genocide - not to mention eating shellfish and pork (yum).

    If that disturbs anyone's conception of a loving God - well, consider that God if there is one is much, much bigger than the Bible, and let your thinking proceed from there.

  • redvip2000

    redvip2000, quoted below is a snippet explaining why male rape was utilized in ancient times. My comment was not necessarily to "defend the Bible" per se, but to point out that things were different thousands of years ago, and something that would have been totally understood by people who lived in Bible times is now being misunderstood and twisted in order to justify prejudice against a particular group...i.e. God hates homosexuals and destroyed two cities because of homosexuality, which is patently false.

    A snipet of information from a website of a person who has an agenda to prove that homosexuality is not a sin. Not impressed.

    It seems obvious to me that the men who wrote the bible, being part of a homophobic society, would comdemn homosexuality as being a sin, in the same manner that since they were of a misogynistic society, they also use the bible to put women in their place. This is not about how God feels, it's about how the bible was used to advance their thoughts.

  • fulltimestudent


    redvip2000, quoted below is a snippet explaining why male rape was utilized in ancient times. My comment was not necessarily to "defend the Bible" per se, but to point out that things were different thousands of years ago.

    I absolutely agree that the past is "different." As my Ancient History lecturer's often repeat (to help students get past mthe idea that contemporary culture is the only "correct" way), " the past is another country, they do things differently there."

    But male rape sadly is not uncommon even today. Perhaps, its used as a means to humiliate the enemy, as in the civil wars that raged during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

    It is claimed to be common in the inter-tribal conflicts that are accompanying the re-organisation of African societies.

    Here's some examples:

    From the UK Guardian:


    The rape of men: the darkest secret of war

    Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women. Yet huge numbers of men are also victims. In this harrowing report, Will Storr travels to Uganda to meet traumatised survivors, and reveals how male rape is endemic in many of the world's conflicts.

    another story from the Interpress News Agency Service:


    Unreported Horrors – Male Rape in DR Congo
    By Moses SeruwagiReprint |

    KAMPALA, Nov 13 2011 (Street News Service) - They are men who have lost all pride and self-confidence and who have been left severely traumatised by their experience.


    John is one of the victims of male rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo who was brave enough to speak out about his horrifying experiences.

    “In the past, I thought that it was only females who were raped but not men. I cannot understand myself today. I feel pain all the time in my anus and bladder. I feel like my bladder is full of water. I do not feel like a man. I do not know whether I will ever have children,” said John (not his real name), a 27-year-old refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo who is just one of possibly thousands of victims of male rape as civil wars and tribal conflicts continue unabated across Africa.

    On Jan. 14, 2009, rebels loyal to the former renegade Congolese general Laurent Nkunda attacked Jomba village in the DRC’s North Kivu province. There, the militia abducted ten people including six boys and forced them to carry out looting before taking them to a jungle base in Virunga National Park. John was among those captured.

    “We were held for nine days. The leader of the group asked to have sex with me. I did not understand what he meant. He ordered that I be tied up and then he raped me. The other nine came after him. I passed out. My bottom was covered with blood. All nine days in the bush were like that. It was like that for the others. One of the boys died,” John said.

    and, in case anyone thinks that this only happens in "uncivilised" places, please re-think and consider what happens in western prison systems.

    And, also in the military, as this US Army story Illustrates:

    From the Baltimore SUN:


    MEN WHO ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN THE MILITARY - often find it difficult to report the crime. That’s one reason they rarely get justice.
    Breaking the silence
    DEC. 14, 2013

    B rian Lewis figures he could have dealt with the rape.

    It's the Navy's response to the attack that still haunts the Baltimore native.

    Lewis, the son of a Defense Department civilian who commanded his JROTC battalion in high school, sailed through three years in the Navy and three months aboard the submarine tender USS Frank Cable.

    Then, one night on shore in Guam, he was taken out to dinner by a higher-ranking shipmate, a man who had a wife and children. After the meal, he says, his dinner partner pulled out a knife, threatened his life, and sodomized him.

    A friend reported the attack, and Lewis was visited by a senior officer on the Cable. He says the officer ordered him not to cooperate with Navy investigators.

    That outcome is typical for male victims of military sexual assault, a Baltimore Sun analysis of hundreds of cases found.Lewis says he did as he was told. The investigation stopped dead. There was no court-martial. His attacker was never punished.


    If the Earth is no longer cursed by Jeehoober (post "flood") then why would animals be gay??? Why would GOD allow innocent animals to act in such an unnatural manner, or allow gay animals on the ARK?? After all, don't we learn about GOD from two books, the Bible AND the book of CREATION?!?! WTF?!?!

    Why would Jeehoober allow gayness in the book of creation?!?! Does that make any sense at all?? Wouldn't nature/the book of creation be the perfect opportunity to show Jeehoober's personality, without the HUMAN element?? The council of Nicea can pick and choose scrolls, but can they influence " THE BOOK OF CREATION?!"

    THINK ABOUT IT......


  • Vidiot

    redvip2000 - "It seems obvious to me that the men who wrote the bible, being part of a homophobic society, would comdemn homosexuality as being a sin, in the same manner that since they were of a misogynistic society, they also use the bible to put women in their place. This is not about how God feels, it's about how the bible was used to advance their thoughts."

    Occam's Razor, huh?

    Hard to argue with.

  • BackseatDevil

    One thought about Romans - Paul wrote that to the house church(es) in Rome that he did not start nor had he visited. Everything he was writing was based off word of mouth or letters. So his admonition had to do with keeping the separate from the Gods and Goddesses around them... and sometime, people would evoke the spirit of whatever in their passion and lust. It's very similar to the way Christians evoke the holy spirit that “directs” them to do this or that. So Paul was using strong language (as he wanted to make an impression since he wanted to visit the city), but he also didn't know who he was writing to.

    Now a thought on violence - How the hell does that BIBLE help a person curve their violent behavior? The bible is one of the bloodiest books on the planet. God himself slaughters about 400,000 people not including the first born of all Egypt. Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood of Noah. His followers killed over 2 million under God's orders. And I think we can all agree that when it comes to violence and the bible, history only shows matters getting worse.

    Finally, a thought on human behavior – Violence is a perfectly natural trait. It's what has kept us alive for tens of thousands of years, it is one of the fundamentals of establishing ancient cultures and civility that gave us the life we enjoy today. But as times change the appropriateness of violence no longer becomes necessary as we evolve into more intellectual beings. Altering a natural trait like violence takes several generations to do, and some gene pools are still struggling with it. CURVING a natural tendency is not the same as ABOLISHING that tendency. If someone was to attack your child or you were stuck in a a “fight or flight” situation, that violence can (and in some cases should) pop up in the form of protection.

    So if anything sexual is going to be compared to the trait of violence, it would be monogamy, not homosexuality. Monogamy is the CURVING of a natural sexual tendency without ABOLISHING it. Homosexuality is simply a variation of a natural tendency, NOT something that is unnatural (in over 1500 species of animals) and not something that can or should be abolished in oneself.

    What is extremely unnatural and NOT found in any other species of animal is homophobia and stunted ignorance in behavior sold to the masses as spiritual “fact.”


    Having ZERO "gay" animals [ I no longer subscribe to the terms "gay" or "straight", as we are just human.] would be the ULTIMATE proof of "GOD's" feelings on the matter. The book of creation could be the moral compass, steady and true, despite what "imperfect" fallen humans may assert about sexuality. Xianity could always say, " A-Ha!! The "book of creation" reflects GODS personality and there are no gay animals?!" GOD had the perfect opportunity to prove his point with the animal kingdom. It could serve as a constant reminder to sinful humans. When in doubt, look to the book of creation!

    Instead, we find......??


  • fulltimestudent


    [ I no longer subscribe to the terms "gay" or "straight", as we are just human.]

    An excellent perspective!

    My friend claims that where he lives, no-one in the apartment block treats him and his (same sex) partner any differently to anyone else. People always ask how their partners are, just as they would with any other couple.

    If the mythical Yahweh/Jesus combo god is really homophobic, he has already lost the battle to inculcate homophobia in people, in so many places in the world.

Share this