Refute anti-gay Bible verses

by cloudblue 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  truthseeker

  The Bible is clear on homosexuality - there's no getting around it.
  
  If you are uncomfortable with this, you can ignore it and move on.
  
  Trying to whitewash it and make the Bible say something else when it does not only makes the problem worse.
• 

  cloudblue

  WOW, go to work for 15 hours and come back to....a whole lotta posts.
  
  The actual purpose of this thread was twofold: to find information, and comfort. I've read a few sites that explore what the "anti-gay" verses could have meant. I wanted to see if anyone here had personal experience with this quest, as well. Also, I was seeking comfort and what comforted other people with similar experiences and circumstances.
  
  I actually looked at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible last night, before I saw that recommendation on this post. It made me laugh at work. It did make me question what kind of personality the God of the Bible has, as demonstrated by his actions. And do I feel comfortable worshipping a God that would do those things, that has that kind of personality? Oh, and it did have some sections related to homosexuality.
  
  Thanks to the people that answered what I was asking, thanks for the links and the positive feeling.
  
  I was really only seeking advice and info on a few select verses, though I recognize that some people were trying to help by questioning the Bible as a whole. But, I feel that large of a topic deserves its own separate topic from the one I started.
  
  I think darkuncle29 hit the nail on the head, rather that a few other people. I've not been going to meeting for 7 years now, well except maybe once or twice a year. But that whole time, in the back of my head, I've always still felt that the Society was right. Now I'm questioning that. Instead of just having this low level current of disapproval going on in my head all the time, that sometimes erupts. So, I am somewhat starting to question the Bible as a whole, but slowly, slowly, baby steps.
  
  BFD--I was just looking to explore the notion that maybe some words got mistranslated. Not to discredit it all together.
  
  I'm starting to see homosexuality in the light of a civil rights movement. People used the Bible to support slavery....and I hope we all think that slavery is wrong. People used the Bible to support women being treated as property, and that doesn't quite jive either. We look back on it now, and go ," What were they thinking!?" So, maybe it will be for homosexuality soon.
  
  Hellrider--I've thought about that exercise often in the past. I can't actually perform this exercise but always thought the observation that straight guys thought lesbians were fun, and gay guys were gross was...unfair, to say the least.
  
  Phew, sorry if this doesn't exactly flow well, I've been up all night working and am quite tired.
• 

  Carl_Hernz

  I have had the same experience you are talking about because when I left the Watchtower organization I began to wonder about my sexuality. I even got involved with what is called an "open and affirming" church that teaches some of the things you mentioned. I learned of their beliefs which come from a religious ideology they call Queer Theology--and their main argument is, as you mentioned, teaching that the original words in the Bible are mistranslated.

  I'm a professional writer on Bible subjects and theology. After 7 years of studying this theology as well as working to incorporate it into my life (I came to realize my sexual orientation wasn't at issue as much as sexual repression was), I discovered that the arguments presented by Queer Theology, though well-meaning, are not accurate or can be proven incorrect under apologetic testing (using the scientific method to prove the reasoning in the arguments).

  I have been a bit worried for my friends in the GLBT community (and I have an older brother who is actively gay) not so much that they are living lifestyles contrary to Scripture but that many of them are basing their lives on the tenets of Queer Theology which is academically wanting. Queer Theology has been around for a while, is studied at universities around the world, but it's scholarship is sloppy and sometimes outright lacking and ignorant of history. I believe that those in the GLBT community deserve a rethinking of this theology because for the most part I think it does them a disservice and that they, like anyone else, deserve authentic scholarly work to espouse their beliefs instead of the current network which is not so much scholastic as it is political (and that is where the main problem lies).

  If you want more information on their arguments and how they stand up to apologetic testing (too much information that can be provided here), I can send you information from a book of mine that is in the final stages prior to publishing. I have a few chapters in it that cover their arguments and compare them to Scripture, as well as put them to the test. I can't make a link to this work because it doesn't exist anywhere on the Net or is on the market yet, but I can send what early previewers got to see that covers all of this if you are interested.
• 

  dust

  1 Tim 1:5 (NWT): "Really the objective of this mandate is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy."
  
  This is the background for the catalogue of sins in verses 9-11. This catalogue is interesting not because it includes "men who lie with males" (verse 10), but because it in the light of this context tells us what were considered good illustrations of such things that people might do if they did not have a "clean heart".
  
  In the same catalogue of sins, Paul mentions both lawless persons, unruly ones, kidnappers, liars and more. But now imagine that you are "unruly" and refuse to obey the one who asks you to do something bad. (Other examples from the same catalogue of sins can be made easily.)
  
  Would this unruliness be considered to be of the kind that Paul thought of, when we know that you disobeyed due to pure love (verse 5), disregarding the consequences you might face yourself?
  
  Most people would say no.
  
  The "sins" listed by Paul are only illustrations of actions that would typically be considered indications that love was not the motivating factor. These "sins" are sins not because of the actions they involve. They are sins when they illustrate lack of love. (Just as it was no sin to gather food or cure someone "unlawfully" on the sabbath, Matt 12.)
  
  Then why make an exception for one of the illustrations, and claim: this is a sin whatsoever, whether it is an act of love or an act of lovelessness?