Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible

by Oubliette 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @krejames:

  Sorry for the late response. Every now and then work gets in the way and I have to put the forum on hold. You wrote:

  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!)

  Don't worry about any sort of typos. It is just a forum.

  I see what you are saying. In essence, you are defining "homosexuality" as more of a sexual "orientation". In doing so, you make a distinction between being "gay" or "homosexual" and the phyiscal aspects that might come with that "orientation". Then you say that the Bible seems to be against the sexual acts of homosexuality, and not necessarily against the "orientation". If I have misunderstood, please feel free to set me straight.

  So if you are a gay and a Christian, the only way you can be Bible-believing and homosexual is fully admit that your "orientation" is, at the very least, "incorrect" in God's eyes. Also, a homosexual Christian would have to live in such a way as to deny that orientation's effects. A homosexual Christian could fully accept that he is a homosexual, for whatever reason (nature vs. nurture doesn't matter here), but he would have reject the orientation as improper to act upon. I noticed in your response you said that being gay is "not so much about sex as it is about love, hopes and dreams and who you are". That makes sense. You accept that you are gay, and normally are proud of that. It is who you are.

  But essentially, to be gay and Christian (remember, what I mean by this is a Christian that accepts the Bible, including Paul), you must reject all the hopes and dreams and love that comes with who you are - unless of course the "hopes" are NOT tied up in being with someone you love. And your "dreams" do NOT include being with the one you love. That seems unreasonable, though. This seems to go well with the "hate the act, not the person doing the act" reponse that Christians normally give.

  One more question: why would you say the term "homophobic" is proper for someone who says being gay (orientation) is wrong? If what we mean by "homosexual" is the orientation, and all that goes with it, then Christians - in hating the ACT, not the ACTOR - have to conclude that it is "wrong" in the sense that it is "incorrect way of living" (can't pursue a life based on the orientation). Why are they "homophobic"?

  MMM

  (edit: also, to go with the theme of the thread, it still makes sense why those churches - including the WTB&TS - would condemn those homosexuals that do not admit their orientation is incorrect)
• 

  Oubliette

  MMM: also, to go with the theme of the thread, it still makes sense why those churches - including the WTB&TS - would condemn those homosexuals that do not admit their orientation is incorrect

  No!

  As I stated in the OP, there are about 4,500 verses in the Bible on subjects other than homosexuality for every verse that discusses it.

  The amount of time the GB of JWs spends on the subject is clearly disproportionate to the amount of ink it gets in the Bible. They are clearly obsessed with it. I am pointing it out and asking what that suggests about their mentality.

  What other religions do is irrelevant to what the GB does, particularly since the GB claims they are the leaders of the only true religion.

  This thread was not started to even discuss whether or not homosexuality is wrong or even if it's incompatible with the Bible and "Christianity." That is a subject for a separate thread. This is all about the obvious obsession that the GB members have with it.

  I posit that Anthony Morris is likely compensating in response to his unsuccessful struggles with his own homosexual urges.
• 

  BackseatDevil

  @Billy the Ex-Bethelite By the time I was at Bethel that was all in the manuel. I thought "hey, what a great idea!" A few vodka martinis later...

  To be honest, JW's are a homophobic hate group, but a nice homophobic hate group... one that will smile and hug you, love you and support you... all the while thinking in the back of their mind that satan is going to fly out of your penis and attack them at any time.

  Their attention on the subject is not like in other fundamentalism groups. On the outside they take the Mormon route of smothering with kindness... over your face, with a pillow... at night when you sleep. To me, it's the worst kind of homophobia. The GB's attention to it would come from Bethel itself, where a bunch of young men at their prime decide to not get married and live at the greatest sausage fest outside the Vatican. It also comes with the advancements of LGBT rights in this country. It's a hot political topic, it's a hot religious topic.

  And, it's a motivator too. Realize that subject, with the marriage, gossip, drinking, and various forms of the seven deadly sins are all on a carousel that they spin... whatever pops up next is what they talk about. same fucking subjects, year after year.

  Touching gay story with no gay sex.
• 

  RottenRiley

  Did anyone know the higher up Annointed Homosexuals, the double-speaking Q-Eye( I Loved CARSON, why can't we have a cool homosexual GB Member like Carson?) guys who told commoners "Gay Sex was evil" while indulging in Gay Sex? I wonder about the Watchtower Community, who and what was going on before the "Great Purge"? Tony Morris needs to examine himself, my Gay-dar is going off big time! Why, the way he get's really happy talking about "tight pants" "really tight tight tight pants", there's something in his voice and eyes that tell me he is fighting internal urges.

  Tony Morris does protesteth too much!
• 

  88JM

  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.

  This is one of the areas where the JWs say one thing in their literature, and say another thing amongst themselves in private.

  In the literature, you will read things like "we don't know whether homosexuality is something from birth or if there are other factors", whereas JWs will say among themselves that it's definitely a learned behaviour, a lifestyle choice - a product of imperfection that will be wiped out in the "new system".

  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.

  That's very well put, and gets to the point of what is really wrong with AMIII's rant as MMM explained. If he stuck to those few scriptures, he might at least have the appearance of having a leg to stand on (which he probably doesn't) but what he does instead is to go way beyond that, making up a totally random rule that it's wrong to buy tight pants because they might be made by homosexuals, and by extension and inferrence of those listening, having any interaction with homosexuals is scripturally wrong.

  So when AMIII is going on his rant, he's not just ranting against the act of homosexual sex, which many religious fundementalists also take issue with, but he's going way beyond that, advocating ostracism and ultimately veiled hatred not just towards an act but hatred towards a people and against their hopes and dreams.

  That's why:

  To me, it's the worst kind of homophobia.
• 

  RottenRiley

  88JM, how would the Governing Body in all their wisdom classify hermaphrodities, the Governing Body can splice down what allowable blood-fraction is spiritual safe, where would the GB and Goober Elders send a hermaphrodite, they have such great authority of judging the "little things" we ought to trust them to make the "heavy decessions", right?
• 

  88JM

  Yes - it's subjects like hermaphrodities where their legalism falls apart completely. This also would extend to their poor handing and ignorance in other areas such as mental health in general, and specifically also what gender someone identifies with.

  Again they choose ignore the science and make up their minds about something the bible doesn't even discuss. They take a totally antiquated view that gender is black and white - penis or vagina. They don't consider that the brain plays just as big a role in gender too.