God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites - What does the bible REALLY teach?

by irondork 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  irondork

  That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. – Romans 1:26,27

  (Excerpts from: Homosexianity by R. D. Weekly – For the sake of familiarity, scripture quotations appearing in the book were replaced with the New World Translation) http://www.amazon.com/Homosexianity-Letting-Devastating-Scripture-Orientation/dp/1442163062/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356175321&sr=1-1&keywords=homosexianity

  _________________________________________________________________

  On it’s face, this passage seems to clearly condemn same-sex sexual activity, whether engaged in by men or women. The acts are described as “vile affections”, “against nature” (unnatural), and “unseemly” (indecent). The passage even says that those who engage in such activity receive in themselves fitting recompense for their sinful activity.

  When it comes to biblical condemnations, they don’t get much clearer. We have clear language describing the same-sex acts, God’s perception of the acts, and God’s judgment against them.

  First, let’s examine the ENTIRE context:

  Romans 1:18-32

  18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.

  24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

  28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, 29 filled as they were with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them.

  One thing should have stood out after reading this greater context – something that should have reminded you of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. There is a direct textual correlation between the sexual acts described here and the idolatrous worship, although this time female-female sex is also condemned. By examining the two verses (vs. 26 & 27) in isolation, we could easily overlook this link.

  In verses 18 and 19 we see that God’s wrath is being revealed against people who are holding back His truth in their unrighteous activities. His truth has been revealed to these people, yet they choose to continue in activity that denies or otherwise restrains that truth from being received by others.

  Verse 21 states that although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God. They imagined their own versions of truth and their hearts were darkened as a result. They claimed to have the truth (v. 22), but were really fools – fools who replaced the glory of God with graven images.

  The people who are the subjects of this discourse are idolaters. They were holding back [what they knew to be] the truth of God by presenting their idolatrous beliefs as the truth.

  [At this point, I’m going to switch authors. I like how Justin Lee described his own research and thought processes while examining this passage, in his book TORN. For the sake of familiarity, scripture quotations appearing in the book were replaced with the New World Translation] http://www.amazon.com/Torn-Rescuing-Gospel-Gays-vs-Christians-Debate/dp/1455514314

  The passage made it sound like God gave people over to homosexuality as a result of their turning from Him. Did that mean that straight people had become gay when they turned from God? Was being gay a punishment for turning from God?

  I hadn’t turned from God. I was sure I hadn’t turned from God. I knew I wasn’t perfect, but I certainly had never turned away the way this passage seemed to suggest. How could it say that my being gay was a punishment for turning from God? And if other Christians read this, no wonder they thought I was some kind of apostate.

  Did it perhaps mean that they were already gay, but that they were celibate – until they turned from God and He gave them over to homosexual behavior? But that didn’t seem to be what the passage was saying. It said the men had abandoned relations with women after they turned from God and after God gave them over to impurity. That made it sound like they had been straight before, not gay and celibate. Once again I was stuck with the same question as in the Sodom story: Why would straight people choose to have gay sex?

  Or maybe I was looking at it all wrong. Maybe this was meant to refer more broadly to all of humanity – that because we, humanity, had sinned, God had allowed some kind of corruption of our natural sexual desire to affect us as a species. So perhaps my same-sex attractions were the result of humanity’s fall in a broader sense, and not necessarily my own turning from God.

  But if this was about all of us, then why did Paul keep saying “they”; “They are without excuse,” “They became fools,” “God gave them up,” “Their women exchanged natural relations,” and so forth? It certainly sounded like he was referring to a specific group of people, not just humanity in general, and that this group of people had turned from God, worshiped idols, and been given over to some kind of unnatural sexual activity. But who were those people and did they have anything to do with me? Was he talking about gay couples or was he talking about something entirely different? Whoever “they” were, clearly in Paul’s eyes they were sinning. I didn’t want to be like them. But what exactly was going on in this passage?

  Then I noticed something else curious. When I had skimmed the passage initially, I had read the idol worship and the sexual behavior as two unrelated sins, mentioned to provide examples of wickedness. But as I read the passage more closely, I realized that in Paul’s view, these two behaviors were somehow connected. Twice, in fact, he said that the dishonorable sex was a direct result of the idol worship:

  [They] turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things. Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them….

  [They] exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created….That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites

  What was the connection between the idol worship and the dishonorable sex? I could understand saying that sin in general is a result of turning from God, which is what I had originally interpreted this passage to mean. But Paul had a long, separate list of sins at the end of the passage. If he intended to mention homosexuality as one of the sins that result from turning from God, why didn’t he list it there with all the other sins? Why did he single it out and specifically connect it with idolatry?

  I began to research this question, and it didn’t surprise me to discover that in Paul’s day, as in the time of Leviticus, some idol-worshiping cults included sex (in sometimes bizarre ways) as part of their worship rituals. Cult temple prostitution, castration, and same-sex sex rites in honor of popular goddesses were all well-known practices of the time.

  This explained Paul’s connection of idol worship to shameful sexual behavior. With this new information, suddenly the whole passage made a lot more sense to me. The “they” was a reference to people who had turned from God, as represented by the idol worshipers. Paul was using them and their sexual rites as an illustration to make a point to his audience.

  In some ways, it was like the strategy the prophet Nathan had used with King David in 2 Samuel 12. David had had Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed so that he could have Bathsheba. Rather than directly confronting David about his sin, Nathan told him a story about a rich man who stole from a poor man. After David became angry at the man in the story, Nathan revealed that the man in the story was in fact a representation of David.

  Paul’s strategy in in Romans was similar. He began by talking about wicked people who had turned from God, then discussed how they had begun to worship idols, leading God to give them over to the dishonorable sex rites that accompanied such worship – rites that involved gay sex practiced by otherwise straight people, something Paul knew his audience would find objectionable. Furthermore, Paul said, these people had become caught up in all kinds of sins. And just as his audience was nodding their heads in agreement, ready to condemn these people, Paul sprung his trap, catching them by surprise:

  Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same thing. – Romans 2:1(ESV)

  Paul’s entire point in this passage was to show his audience that all of us are sinners in need of a Savior. The idolaters who engaged in shameful sex rites were a perfect illustration for the seriousness of turning from God, a way to get his audience agreeing with him before he unexpectedly turned the tables on them. Read in this light, the purpose of the passage was much clearer.
• 

  Quendi

  Thanks for sharing this, irondork. I appreciate the research you have done. The WTS has always quoted Romans 1: 27, 28 in a blanket condemnation of homosexuality and that convinced me for many years that my own nature was “deviant” and “sinful.” Like you, however, I began to look at the passage in context, and that was when I realized that the apostle Paul was discussing idolatry and some of its effects.

  Naturally, no fundamentalist sect will agree with the understanding we and others have. They will insist that these passages make an unqualified condemnation of same-sex relations. However, it is good to know that alternative understandings are possible, especially when readers look at this passage exegetically. Biblical exegesis is something many fundamentalists do not embrace. They prefer the method of isolating different scriptures and then giving them the interpretation they prefer. It is no wonder that this leads to a religion that is rigid, unyielding and unloving.

  Quendi
• 

  Cold Steel

  Naturally, no fundamentalist sect will agree with the understanding we and others have. They will insist that these passages make an unqualified condemnation of same-sex relations. However, it is good to know that alternative understandings are possible, especially when readers look at this passage exegetically.

  When the Lord returns, He said it will be as it was in the days of Noah—evil enough to be eradicated. As it was in the days of Noah, Jesus said, even so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man. Reading Paul ’ s epistle to the Romans in Chapter 1, it ’ s clear what the context is. We know that the Jews and the early Christians both excoriated homosexuality and other deviant sexual behavior. Why should one be expected to engage in macro-exegesis to garner the true meaning of the scripture? Are you seriously arguing that Paul thought there was nothing unnatural about homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality and other deviant sexual practices?

  The Northern Colorado Gazette reported that once homosexuals were considered a mental disorder by American Psychiatric Association. In 1973, the APA declassified it. Now a group of psychiatrists are proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders.

  Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status, arguing their sexual desire for children is an orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals. And there’s nothing in the Bible prohibiting pedophilia, isn’t that right?

  The Gazette goes on to report:

  Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

  No one says one has to act on their sexual desires and appetites, and homosexuality carries with it considerably more aberrant and promiscuous behaviors than heterosexuality, many which are unquestionably demonstrative of the mental and emotional deviancy we see in San Francisco’s “gay” parades’ debauchery. These involve wildly effeminate behaviors, the abuse and torture of small animals, holes cut in bathroom stalls, one-night stands and other abnormalities. One emergency room doctor I spoke to years ago told me that he’s removed from men’s rectums virtually anything that would fit between their cheeks.

  Forgive me if I view this as a deviant mental disorder. Can homosexuals change? I really don’t know. Can pedophiles change? Again, I don’t know. Based on statistical recidivism, it seems doubtful.

  My view is that if you’re gay, and want to live that way, go for it! It’s a horrible thing to have to fight and I’m certainly not your judge. I have enough of my own problems as a sinful mortal that I can’t point the finger at anyone. But that said, don’t seek solace from the scriptures. You’re only deceiving yourselves.
• 

  transhuman68

  From 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.
• 

  NewChapter

  But that said, don’t seek solace from the scriptures. You’re only deceiving yourselves.

  Why shouldn't they? You just made the bible say exactly what you wanted it to say. Others have made the bible say exactly what they wanted it to say. Seems like the perfect place to seek solace---it can be made to say just about anything. As you said, it's really not up to you to judge others, but it does seem up to you to tell others not to view the bible in any other way than what you view it. LOL
• 

  irondork

  Cold Steel, I want you to know I read every word of your post and I understand exactly where you're coming from.

  Oh, dear... where to begin?

  If a person really, REALLY hates tupperware products, one could say the increase in tupperware parties lately is in fulfillment of the prophesies that talk about deplorable conditions in the last days. The only problem that person would have is in proving that tupperware is truly evil, rather than something he just thinks is icky.

  That is, in affect, what you just said above, because you provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your theory (other than a newspaper clipping that happenes to support your philosophy) that an acceptence of God's gay and lesbian creation is one of the signs of this world's moral decay.

  Cold Steel: homosexuality carries with it considerably more aberrant and promiscuous behaviors than heterosexuality, many which are unquestionably demonstrative of the mental and emotional deviancy we see in San Francisco’s “gay” parades’ debauchery.

  Absolute bunk! A typical tactic used by anti-gay folks: find the most deplorable scenario possible and then try to attatch an entire community to it.

  Years ago, I read a short clip in one of those News of the Weird columns about a guy who crawled down into the hole beneath a women's outhouse, into the muck and stench, just so he could look up and watch women defecate. Were I to conclude, "Well, that's straight guys for you. The bible warned us about straight people when it talked about moral decay in the last days," my conclusion would be laughed at as heartily as your attempt to use the filth of a gay parade subculture to define the GLBT community at large.

  It may surprise you to know that the vast majority of GLBT people don't even go to the actual parade event, for exactly the reasons quoted above.

  And there is absolutely not one single behavior engaged in by gay people that is not equally engaged in by heterosexuals (within the confines of their respective sexual orientations). NOT ONE THING!

  And your slippery slope argument is just to cliche' to address. "If we recognise gay people then we'll have to give the same right to frogs who want to mate with turnips."

  This is why your people lost the culture war on this issue. The ideas and philosophies and ridiculous, baseless accusations ("Gay's destroy marriage!") and juvenile argumentation, perfectly represented by your post above, is why the GLBT community is enjoying the long overdue freedoms and rights that we enjoy today. As ironic as it is, our community owes your community a great debt of gratitude. You folks exposed yourselves and your arguments better than we ever could have done on our own. The thing that really sealed the deal is after your people dished out your hateful, very damaging vitriol, you ran back and hid behind your version of God and claimed moral authority.

  It's sad, really. Some of you don't even know the war is over because with each one of your intellectual death throws you sputter out the same old tired spiel, unaware that it stopped having any affect a long time ago.

  I'm wondering if you would be interested in even attempting to address some of the reasoning points offered in this thread or the other two recent threads on the topic, or are you content to just spew your God Hates Fags message?

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/243651/1/The-sin-of-Sodom-and-Gomorrah-What-does-the-bible-REALLY-teach

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/243779/1/Do-not-lie-with-a-male-as-with-a-female-What-does-the-bible-REALLY-teach
• 

  GromitSK

  Hear hear @irondork

  in some ways the general view of religions towards gay people has helped me to separate myself from them completely. Having been a religious person, as for many others, the process was painful at the time however I'd rather not be involved with organisations that accept me grudgingly at best. Most gay people know that their orientation is not a choice. The path of life for many of us can be very difficult. It would be easier in many ways to conform to the religious models, but it would be a deception.

  The truth seems to me that if there is a God, I doubt very much any of the organised religions or 'holy' texts represent it. The truth can indeed set you free :)
• 

  irondork

  Cold Steel: Are you seriously arguing that Paul thought there was nothing unnatural about homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality and other deviant sexual practices?

  Paul most certainly DID state that homosexuality was unnatural... FOR HETEROSEXUALS! - for those who gave up their natural use of the opposite sex in order to engage in sexual activity for which they were not designed, as part of their idol worship.

  Knowing you have no solid argument to offer, you resorted to poisoning the well by lumping "pedophilia, beastiality and other deviant sexual practices" in with the mention of homosexuality. You can't take on homosexuality on it's own merits so you bring in the most abhorrent mental pictures available and try to make them stick.

  You failed.
• 

  unstopableravens

  irondork:like new chapter mentioned people can take the bible and make it teach what they want, thats why the jw can make jesus be an angel,that being said there ae two options, make the bible conform to a persons beliefs or conform our beliefs to what the bible says. if you truly believe the bible is gods word and you really want to have gods understanding, than would you be ready to admit that being gay is wrong if it really does say that. i gave new chapter my story ,and i told her when i knew jw teachings were wrong and i had one goal when studying the bible and that was to believe only what was true even if i was wrong on everything,so when i studyed it was easy for me to except jesus being god,that jesus was rasied bodly, but the one thing i personally hated was the thought of hellfire, and i did not want to believe it, however i vowed to only want the truth and when i did without bias ,i was convienced it is real. so im not saying you have or have not with this but you can tell me.
• 

  irondork

  Unstopableravens, your premise is sound. And your sincerity is obvious.

  I spent the first forty years of my life believing in every word of Watchtower doctirne, including the anti-gay crap. I spent some of that time with my head stuck in the "world", but never lost my desire to do right by God. When I cleaned up my addictions and turned attention back to God (through the WTS, got reinstated, etc...) the anti-gay pummeling was still alive and well within the church and it was still having the same destructive affect on me. This time, however, rather than run away and hide in a bottle of vodka, I stood my ground and determined that the message I was recieving from the bible, and the way it was destroying my desire to have anything to do with God could not possibly have originated with God.

  God does not take people who love him, theologically slap them around, tear them down, make them feel guilty for something that person KNOWS he or she never chose to be, and tuck them away in a corner of his earthly organization like a dirty little secret that "we don't talk about." I know where that kind of message comes from and who would be behind the promotion of a teaching that would only serve to destroy a person's relationship with God, and I was determined to figure it out. Remember, I used to read those same verses I have been presenting in these threads with the same understanding you have. But without being able to explain how or why, I KNEW they were wrong. It was not a matter of deciding whether I would chose homosexuality or God. I had already chosen God. I just needed to put this homosexuality question to rest.

  I thought I used to read and study too much as an active JW. I have done more reading and studying in the last two years since I left that organization than I ever thought my brain could handle. The end result is, my faith in God is stronger now than it has ever been in my life. I still trip up now and then, but I don't have a pit in my stomach every time I think about giving praise to God, because before, I always felt like the abused half of a relationship just doing what I had to do so I wouldn't get hit. I feel refreshed. Invigorated. Ready to go and worship and draw close and feel good and be proud of my relationship and eager to learn more and do more... AND THAT is what originates with God.

  At the end of this forum conversation, feel free to remain in disagreement with me on this subject. But please don't question the sincerity with which I present the information. One thing I have learned since leaving the organization is a respect for other people's beliefs (trinity, helfire, homosexuality being a sin, etc...) and an ability to recognise them as fellow Christians, equally acceptable to Christ due to the "condition of their hearts and the inclination of their thoughts."

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I have put this information out on these threads for examination. There have been a few nay-sayers, yourself included... Cold Steel not so politely (I needed a day off to let my own steam settle). I appreciate Quendi's, GromitSK's and others support. But I have yet to see anyone take to task a single reasoning point presented, other than to offer a general objection.

  The anti-gay interpretations of these scriptures have been presented to me my entire life as fact. The information presented in these threads has dismantled the traditional reasoning point by point. This is a perfect opportunity for anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin to respond by supporting your interpretaion of the scriptures POINT BY POINT - not by posting what amounts to recycled drivel, baseless accusations and hate speech.

  I hope someone will take me up on this.

  (Keep in mind I have one more scipture topic to post, 1 Corinthians 6. If you want to wait until all the information is on the table, that's cool.)