irondork, I always thought of those two points as separate entities, not related to each other. The "Unnatural purposes" was condeming prostitutes and "men who lie with men" was condemning homosexuals in general.
Does the Bible actually condemn Homosexuality for Chrisitans anywhere ?
by Phizzy 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
irondork
I always thought the same thing, MrFreeze... and so does Religion, Inc. in general.
Then I studied it more closely. Please take a look at this thread:
-
MrFreeze
That's an interesting read irondork.
-
tec
Paul seemed a bit pharisiacal in 1Corinthians. He also retracted his 'shunning' order, in his next letter.
Christ did not condemn homosexuality (Christ did not condemn to begin with; he forgave); but neither does one's sexual orientation break the two greatest commands: to love God and neighbor. Those condemning a man/woman for their sexual orientation (including discriminating, verbal bashing, physical bashing, etc), however, might want to consider whether or not they are breaking those two commands.
Christ also said to remove the log from one's own eye before attempting to remove the speck from the eye of one's brother.
(Thanks for putting that explanation up there Irondork.)
Peace,
tammy
-
designs
Tammy- When Jesus paraphrased the Torah, Gen.5:2, he was condemning anything other than that.
-
Wilfried
If someone can read french, this book will reply to all your questions :
Témoin de Jéhovah homosexuel
(official french website : http://www.temoindejehovahhomosexuel.fr/)
This MUST-BE-READ book is available at Lulu : http://www.lulu.com/shop/adam-alesander/t%C3%A9moin-de-j%C3%A9hovah-homosexuel-volume-1-analyse/hardcover/product-20541154.html
This is the only existing book made for homosexual JW. Volume 2 is in preparation, and I don't know if this volume 1 will be one day available in english.
The english video presentation of the book is here :
-
Phizzy
Boy, my memory is getting bad ! I had forgotten your excellent thread Irondork.
The interesting thing is that in Greek there is, as you may expect, a plethora of words for Paul to choose from to convey his thought, but he uses "Arsenokoitai".
One would need to demonstrate that 1st Century readers would understand Paul to mean something different from how say Philo understood the use of the Septuagint's very similar word in Leviticus 20 v 3 , Philo took that to mean Temple Prostitute.
So what proof is offered that Paul meant something different ?
-
tec
I do not know what you are saying to me, Designs.
Peace,
tammy
-
Larsinger58
Paul was a "eunuch" which means he would be considered to be "gay" in our modern culture. Jesus says some eunuchs are "born that way from their mother's womb" and that is considered to be a "gift", not a deformity. So being GAY is a natural thing. That is, not being attracted to the opposite sex.
In the meantime, there is a contextual or predisposition to developing homosexual desires, which must be resisted. Being "gay" is considered a gift of SINGLENESS. That is, not having the usual desire to marry and have children allows one to pursue personal goals and careers without hindrance, like the focus on the ministry, or some public works, etc. But that didn't mean eunuchs were to be aesexual. They could masturbate to handle any sexual urges (see 1 Thess 4:3-8). Even so, in the imperfect state, sometimes there strong sexual feelings developed for someone of the same sex.
This was the case with Paul. He developed a problem with his "eyes." That is, he likely went to the gymnasium to see the young naked boys exercising and training. Those in the congregation knew about this and ignored it out of respect for Paul. That's why Paul said he wanted to gouge is own eyes out. That was his struggle. His homosexual urges in the context of being a "eunuch." So this was huge battle going on within him. His mind and heart wanted to do good and loved the truth, but his body couldn't resist the temptation to look inappropriately at the wrong things. So there was a war going on inside his body. He was given great responsibility and great position, one which might have swelled his head. He asked God to remove this weakness from him, but God did not. This helped keep him humble.
Now in the modern context, I think Christian gays have two major challenges:
1) One is, of course, resisting sodomy and oral sex, which can be argued is condemned in the Bible as inappropriate. That is, sex with another person is limited to those who are married.
2) The second is thinking that somehow being "gay" is unnatural and that they are responsible for that and need to be straight. Wrong. It is natural for a "eunuch" or someone gay not to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
MODERN CONTEXT: Now, let me share with you a personal experience of two gay friends of mine. One was very religious and Catholic and he always considered gay sex to be wrong. He tried marriage and was miserable and finally gave in and started a relationship with another man. They were very close and very devoted to each other and lived together. But he never liked anal sex, he just couldn't get into it, so they just had oral sex for a long time. But his partner, who had been married before as well, had two daughters. When the daughters came to visit them, he wanted to pretend that he and his "room mate" were not having sex and so he made it look like they had two separate beds. Well, this was seen as totally phony to his lover that he would deny this relationship to his daughters, so after that, he refused to ever have sex with him again. But they still lived together and still loved each other. They just weren't having sex any more with each other. They are still together today, have more than 30 years, as loving companions but not sexual companions.
So does God condemn the love these two men have for each other? They are not sodomizing each other. Further, is it wrong to prefer the company of another man over that of a woman? That is, to please God is it necessary to try to be "straight"?
So from a strictly Biblical point of view, you can be in love with another man in deference to a woman, you can live with that man, kiss him, hold him, hug him, pick out drapes together,dine out and have a life with him. Just no anal intercourse and no oral sex per se. Plus you can masturbate as much as you need to.
Now that is in contrast to someone who is a gay advocate who wants everybody to accept their right to be gay, but they include their promiscuous lifestyle as well. The whole thing. That is, a lot of gay men in large cities who want sex, simply pick someone up at the bar if they are good looking enough to do so. They have lots of one-night stands. Or, they just go to the local bath house, where they get a room or just a locker and a towel and walk through the dark hallway looking for someone to have sex with. During the night they could have sex with lots of people who happen to be there. Or they can have group sex in the showers or steam rooms or orgy rooms. Night after night.
When I first became sexually active, within about three months I had had sex with so many people, I stopped counting after over 200 people. Imagine me going to the committee to confess and having to admit that I had had sex with over 300 people by then!! It doesn't take long.
Now. God condemns sex between anyone who is not married! There are lots of rules and traditions connected with marriage in culture. But those traditions are not present among gays. Thus even if say, we turned a blind eye to monogamous gay relationships and what they do in private, under the very loose guise of a "marriage," all the other sex between two men would be condemned just as much as premarital sex or adultery.
THE MORAL DEBATE: Should gay sex be condemned, morally? Well, ask if it is wrong to engage in premarital sex or adultery in our culture? Now what your RIGHTS are is one thing, but what is considered to be MORAL, is something else. Anyone has a "right" to go out and be a hoar and have sex with every Tom, Dick and Harry. That's your "right." But if someone calls you a "hoar" and you get disfellowshipped for fornication, that's a MORAL issue. So certainly, one must ask a gay person, particularly a gay Christian, where they draw the MORAL line. In the straight world, that moral line is drawn at marriage.
So that's part of the problem: MORAL vs. RIGHT. People have the right to be whores if they want to and commit adultery and cheat on their mates. But when they get to Church on Sunday, all that fornication outside marriage is condemned and considered a "sin." So where's the gay moral code? Are gays going to apply the same moral code as straights, that is, any sex outside "marriage" is a sin?
At the other end of the spectrum, lots of people, even married, live together and love each other without an active sex life. I laughed when I heard once Viagra came out how many wives hated it! They were content not to be bothered by their husband's affections!
But what happens in the gay debate is distorted. That's because gays are quick to talk about the pain of not having love or companionship in their lives and can see clearly they have a right to love another person. That's the Obama's take on it. You know, who is to tell you who to love. Love is good. But they want to piggyback acceptance of the sexual behavior without an accompanying moral code. Two straight people fall in love, it's wonderful, they get married. But they are expected to be faithful to one another. Sex outside that marriage is considered a sin. Look at Patraeus! He had that affair and it's a big scandal! Look at ex-President Clinton. He was having oral sex with Monica Lewinsky and it was considered a huge sin and betrayal of his wife. Thus a strong, traditional moral code exists in the culture for straight behavior and marriage. But there is nothing of the kind in relation to gay sexual behavior.
-
BU2B
WTF??