by Designer Stubble 174 Replies latest watchtower bible
Similar to JWs in the US at 76%. (I wonder what the equivalent JW and Evangelicla figures for those countries are, which would be a fair comparison)
Comparing like with like, only 47% of Muslims in the US say homosexuality should be rejected, lower than JWs (76%)' Evangelicals (55%) or Mormons (57%).
In the USA the label "Evangelical" covers a broad spectrum from biblical literalists to more liberal christians.
My question is still the same.
The Watchtower is predicated on the belief that the bible is the inspired word of god.
The OT and the NT condemn homosexuality.
What would you have them do or say that they are not doing already?
Your earlier suggestion that they could sanction gay marriage is totally unrealistic.
Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality. Paul condemned homosexuality but I think he was a fraud like Rutherford was.
LRG
Paul condemned homosexuality but I think he was a fraud like Rutherford was.
But that doesn't change anything as far as the cult is concerned does it? In order to change their ban on gay marriage they would have to repudiate most of the NT.
Either way JWs face real problems. The trends are clear that gay marriage is increasingly accepted by all sections of society. It has followed a similar trajectory to views on mixed race marriages, which very few now oppose and opposition is socially unacceptable.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
If current trends continue - and the overwhelming support for gay marriage among you people suggests that it will - then JWs will soon be very isolated. A very similar position to the one the Mormon church found itself in regarding race equality in the 1970s.
Evangelicals are already rapidly accepting gay marriage. In some ways they'll have an easier time of it than JWs. Evangelicals are very interested in politics, and as it becomes politically untenable to oppose gay marriage that will be a big incentive for them to change. Another thing is that power is more evenly distributed among the Evangelical community, so there is scope for pastors and individuals to draw their own conclusions and change at their own pace. JWs on the other hand need to wait for the GB to change any policy, and there is a strong incentive for GB members to stick by their previous statements on the issue as long as they are alive.
There are ways to interpret the NT that allow for gay relationships. Many Protestants already do this. JWs already interpret away many many scriptures. For example the scripture that says a sinner must present himself to the congregation. JWs, with no shame whatsoever, say this verse means the sinner must go to the elders, not the congregation. That is as flat a contradiction of the plain sense of scripture as you could hope for. They are more than capable of explaining away and adapting verses on homosexuality if they so wish.
Will they adapt or won't they? Who knows, really? But there are no easy choices for them either way.
I would argue that if attitudinal trends continue, then not adapting will become simply too difficult to maintain, as it did for the Mormon church refusing to admit black people into the priesthood. However painful the climb down may be.
If they published an article explaining that the biblical prohibition on homosexuality doesn't actually mean what it says they would cease to exist.
A gay marriage at a kingdom hall would lead directly to the demise of the cult.
At the moment it would cause more problems than it would solve. But if trends continue, and say 90% plus of the general population support gay marriage, and around half of JWs, will that calculation change?
Between 2007 and 2015 alone, support for gay marriage rose from 46% to 60% in the general population, and acceptance of homosexuality among JWs rose from 12% to 16% between 2007 and 2014. Support for gay marriage stood at 14% among JWs in 2014. They have a way to go but the trend is in motion. That's not to say trends are inevitable, but at this point this trend appears likely to continue.
It's not a coincidence that the change in attitudes in society as a whole which shows people becoming more tolerant and more accepting of gay marriage etc... is absolutely mirrored in the same increase in people having no religious adherence. Almost as if one thing caused the other or was a way to measure the other ...
There will always be holdouts when change happens. The US has a large proportion of the conservative christian crowd but as we're seeing their influence generally decline they tend to become more militant and extreme and some of the current political battles over their right to discriminate against other people is a manifestation of this.
At some point their numbers will reach the point where they have no influence but may well hold the same outdated views. It's not a given that these groups will ever change their views even if they lose membership as a result.
I think it's actually worse for the gay-marriage christians - their beliefs require more wriggling around bible verses to the extent that you wonder what the point is, why pretend you want to follow the bible at all? Rip it up and write your own book like Scientologists!
Yes it's definitely bound up with secularisation, which is now rapidly underway in the United States.
Homophobia looks set to become a socially unacceptable view (like racism) rather than simply an eccentric minority view (like belief in Bigfoot for example).
That's not to say there won't always be a minority who cling to their homophobia, despite the change in society, just as there are still racists who express racist views in private and sometimes in public.
The point is that such views will no longer be accepted as legitimate discourse in the public sphere, at which point JWs and others will need to face a hard choice, just as the Mormon church did with their racism in the 1970s.
What happened was accurately if clinically described, with no condemnation from Pink News journalists.
That is what a journalist is supposed to do, it is up to the reader to decide their own reaction not for the journalist to dictate, within journalism it is the path usually taken when reporting the most egregious acts as it is usually unnecessary to point out the horror when extreme stories are being reported.
'Shockingly racist’ UKIP-backed Brexit ad features Donald Trump comparing migrants to snakes
The meaning of the headline is clearly referring to the brexit ad as being shockingly racist not UKIP, feel free to read the article to confirm.
Sadiq Khan does not want exemption from Trump’s ‘ignorant’ Muslim ban
Again the headline clearly calls the proposed ban on Muslims ignorant not Donald Trump, feel free to read the article to confirm.
Pink News journalists can call UKIP 'shockingly racist' and Trump 'ignorant' but they are unwilling or unable to express outrage/condemnation or be judgemental when extremists throw gays of tall buildings.
Since the slightest research reveals that neither of your two statements are correct, can we assume that you are now happy with their consistent reporting of facts inline with common reporting norms.
