Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible (page 4)

Phizzy

There are good arguments, very convincing ones, that the Bible verses that appear to discuss Homosexuality do no such thing.

It is a matter of considering the context, historical, societal etc and the meaning and usage of the original language words. Just taking an English translation, perhaps one produced by Homophobes like the W.T will not give an understanding of the original writers views.

I am glad though that A.M the Turd and the W.T generally continue to show their total ignorance of Scripture, of Homosexuality and of 21st Century mores and opinions, so long as they continue to display this Dark Ages Taliban Cult mentality they will find it harder and harder to recruit

MeanMrMustard

@Phizzy:

There are good arguments, very convincing ones, that the Bible verses that appear to discuss Homosexuality do no such thing.

I don't see it. 1 Cor. 6:9 is pretty straight forward in just about every translation that exists.

It is a matter of considering the context, historical, societal etc and the meaning and usage of the original language words. Just taking an English translation, perhaps one produced by Homophobes like the W.T will not give an understanding of the original writers views.

It is not just the WT and the NWT - just do a search on 1 Cor 6:9 on bible.cc or biblehub.com (these sites display all sort of translations and versions together). It seems that each and every one of them got mistranslated it. How should it read?

MMM

krejames

@MeanMrMustard

It's the comment "Being gay is wrong" that's a bit homophobic really. I appreciate a christian might have the view that men having sex with each other is wrong (that's the extent to which the bible addresses same gender sexual activity - it does not address homosexuality itself as a concept).

To illustrate: "being gay is wrong" is like saying "being from Jamaica is wrong". If a christian goes with what the Bible has to say, the most they can say is that it's wrong for men to have intercourse with each other. (using the Jamaican example, it's like saying it's wrong to eat jerk chicken hehe).

There is more to being homosexual than just having sex, though clearly that is a big part of it. What most fundamental religionists don't seem to recognise is that it's not so much about sex as it is about love, hopes and dreams and who you are

If one wanted to be really pedantic and use JW reasoning: take a look at the Insight Book Vol 1, under Crime and Punishment, page 549, under the heading Major Crimes Under The Law. Here the WTS interprets the words used at Lev 18:22 as "sodomy" (no 11 in the list). If this interpretation of a man lying with another man as a woman etc is correct (I'm not convinced to be honest), then as far as homosexuality is concerned, the bible only condemns sodomy. (Paul's scripture at 1 Cor uses an adaption of the hebrew word used in Leviticus).

The point being that the bible does not condemn homosexuality. That is why, to me as a gay man, Tony Morris' talk was so offensive when he ranted about many many many homosexuals being in the fashion industry. Does he not realise there are many many many homosexuals who are Jehovah's Witnesses? What message is he giving them apart from extra guilt and self loathing, knowing he thinks they are "disgusting"?

(edited - far too many mistakes and typos, sorry!)

Phizzy

I wrote " It is a matter of considering the context, historical, societal etc and the meaning and usage of the original language words. "

So, we do not simply take 1Cor 6v9 out of its context, which starts at what was Paul writing about in this section of his letter ? plus then looking at society in his day, and the original language words he chose to use.

Paul was talking here of people who are excluded from the Kingdom by certain actions. Not by sexual orientation. So, was he condemning homosexual relationships ? if so, why not use the word in Greek for a practising homosexual ? no, he uses the word for "men who lie with men" as the NWT have it, and no surprise, because this refers to Male Temple Prostitutes, common in Corinth, linking to his condemnation of Idolatry just a few words previously.

None of the extant Greek manuscripts (secular) of Paul's time use the word to refer to homosexual people or relations in general.

steve2

There is the ever-present risk, that should they let up on condemning homosexuality, the untold numbers of active Witnesses who are lesbian and gay, may begin to accept themselves and lead productive lives unashamed of their sexual orientation. One of the gifts of fundamentalist religions is to highlight how god-awful disgusting the human race is. While we could wish that the GB would demonstrate more love and compassion, if they were to do so, the floodgates of self-acceptance might burst open and - heaven forbid - Witnesses who are homosexual may come to their senses and begin go lead productive and fulfilling loves.

Vidiot

Phizzy - "Paul was talking here of people who are excluded from the Kingdom by certain actions. Not by sexual orientation. So, was he condemning homosexual relationships ? if so, why not use the word in Greek for a practising homosexual ? no, he uses the word for "men who lie with men" as the NWT have it, and no surprise, because this refers to Male Temple Prostitutes, common in Corinth, linking to his condemnation of Idolatry just a few words previously."

Other liberal schools of Biblical scholarship also argue that that passage (and others similarly credited to the Apostle Paul) could also very be likely alluding to the sexual slavery/victimization of young people.

Which, IMO, makes way more sense than condemning the Village People.

Vidiot

Quendi - "The organization's history has a gay component which its leaders do not want to admit or acknowledge."

I totally believe that; reading between the lines, it couldn't be more obvious.

steve2

One of the elders in my congregation would ask me "curious" questions about homosexuality - but only when he spoke to me alone. I remember feeling uncomfortable but also not wanting to be seen as secretive. I did my best to answer his questions. I even referred him to a couple of Watchtower articles on the topic thay were perhaps a little bit more understanding of the difficulties homosexuals endured. Looking back now, I suspect that elder did not observe clear boundaries and sent mixed messages. Nothing happened - but I was left feeling creeped out and vulnerable. I can imagine how much worse off my situation would have been if I had put so much as a foot out - or if the elder crossed the line, he could have absolved his conscience by blaming me. I would not wish that confusing encounter of any vulnerable young man or woman.

Vidiot

steve2 - "...I was left feeling creeped out and vulnerable..."

By a conversation with an authority figure who was no doubt woefully unqualified to give effective counsel on sexuality?

Say it ain't so.

adamah

There is no "gay gene" that has been found.

Instead, some researchers have a hypothesis that explains the biological basis of homosexuality via epigenetic mechanisms (epi-marks), where the fetus is sensitive to hormonal influences in the womb.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/

“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.

Jesus talked out of both sides of his mouth, saying he didn't come to change the (laws found in the) Torah, but to fulfill the prophecies found in it; so Jesus then turned around and CHANGED OR MODIFIED THE LAWS by doing it (eg failing to stone the women caught in adultery, or Jesus in Mark 10 claiming that Moses was 'all wet' in Deut 18:23 for allowing divorce for reasons other than adultery, etc).

Adam

Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible

Share this