matt2414, I agree that certain accounts are arguably not referring to general homosexuality, like the Sodom and Gomorrah story, but Romans 1:26, 27 really seems to be condemning people of the same sex who are attracted to each other.
Today's "gay-bashing" and other embarrassing content public talk!
by stuckinarut2 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Vidiot
Quendi - "...any hope the organization has for its future lies with young people. If growing numbers of this group reject a basic tenet of the Witness religion, what other teachings and practices will they reject? That rejection would ultimately signal the end of this cult and all it stands for. With two-thirds of all Witness youth abandoning the cult after reaching adulthood, further attrition is something the WTS cannot afford. A collapse in the United States would lead to a domino effect around the world that would spell certain doom for the organization."
All very astute observations, Quendi; well done.
It's not just their stance on LGBTs, either, though...
...to truly survive and thrive in the current social environment of the Information Age they really need to mainstream across the board (i.e., abandoning Biblical inerrency, creationism, apocalypticism, shunning, claims of exclusivity, etc.).
Those types of reforms, however, would undermine virtually everything the WTS "stands for", as you said; they'd no longer be "Jehovah's Witnesses".
Talk about a catch-22.
-
Quendi
The passage in Romans 1 is understood by many to be a condemnation of homosexual activity in religious worship, Apognophos, and not of homosexuality itself. Paul speaks against those who turn the glory of the incorruptible God into corruptible images and worship these. Consorting with temple prostitutes was a rather common feature of idol worship and Paul condemns this in the strongest terms regardless of what kind of sex is involved.
Quendi
-
redvip2000
you realize that they were NOT homosexuals and their intent was NOT sexual gratification, but rather an act to exert power over the new guys in town by humiliating them and causing them to submit to the men of the city.
Oh really? it would never occur to me to go and have sex with another guy in order to "Try to humiliate him". What nonsense. The lengths that people go to, in order to defend the bible.
How about just admitting that the bible is an idiotic book that is clearly anti-gay, simply because it was written by an ancient middle eastern society who was clearly homophobic, just as it is today? Isn't that much more intellectually honest than to come up with creative interpretations of something that is pretty clear to everybody?
-
skeeter1
If it was so wrong, why didn't Jesus condemn it?
-
Apognophos
redvip2000, Ezekiel 16:49, 50 seems to say that Sodom was punished for their inhospitality to strangers. It's argued that the men in the city wanted to rape the angels as a show of violence towards strangers, which was of course completely opposed to the tradition of hospitality in that culture, and so that was their great sin, not homosexuality (notice how they were welcomed into Lot's home in Genesis 19, after being left by the other residents unwelcomed, in the public square). So there is some ambiguity there. The threat of a gang rape is probably intended as an illustration of how wicked they were, not as a specific statement that it's the homosexuality which is being punished. However...
Quendi, I do agree that the context of Romans 1 seems to be practices of false worship. But at the same time he is talking about men actually desiring one another since he says (in the NWT) that they are "violently enflamed in their lust toward one another". And why would he single out homosexual temple prostitution, anyway?
In any case, Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 contain the commandment to the Israelites not to tolerate homosexuality. It seems pretty cut and dry to me that the Bible God does not like gays. For me this is only an academic issue, as I am not a Bible believer and don't have a problem with homosexuals.
-
Quendi
You're spot on, Vidiot, about the WTS stance on other issues being a source of worry for its leadership. The Governing Body may well be obtuse and stubborn, but even from their ivory towers in Brooklyn they can see what is happening in the world at large. They think the solution is to attack the changing social and moral climate, not to create any kind of change in the world, but to keep their own youth in the fold. They are supporting a lost cause, however.
The answer the WTS has for the challenges today's youth face is the stale one of pioneering and Bethel service. No youth ministry exists in any congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. No valid and/or plausible career objectives are placed before young people. Straight Witnesses have a severely restricted choice of marriage mates whilst LGB Witnesses have none at all. The WTS actively discourages higher education and career advancement because it knows this will lead to further attrition among the young.
I think the organization feels that not only is it circling the drain, but the speed of that circling is increasing. There aren't enough men to fill congregation positions. The missionary school of Gilead has effectively been disbanded. Branch offices are being closed worldwide and their operations consolidated with other facilities. District overseers are being put out to grass to more or less fend for themselves. Methods being used in the canvassing work are ineffective and outdated. More and more baptismal candidates are born-in Witnesses and not new recruits. Signs of decay and decline are everywhere. No wonder the leadership reacts the way it does. To the rank-and-file, their pronouncements still seem divinely sanctioned. Outside and impartial observers hear them as the death rattle of an execrable cult.
Quendi
-
RedhorseWoman
Oh really? it would never occur to me to go and have sex with another guy in order to "Try to humiliate him". What nonsense. The lengths that people go to, in order to defend the bible.
How about just admitting that the bible is an idiotic book that is clearly anti-gay, simply because it was written by an ancient middle eastern society who was clearly homophobic, just as it is today? Isn't that much more intellectually honest than to come up with creative interpretations of something that is pretty clear to everybody?
redvip2000, quoted below is a snippet explaining why male rape was utilized in ancient times. My comment was not necessarily to "defend the Bible" per se, but to point out that things were different thousands of years ago, and something that would have been totally understood by people who lived in Bible times is now being misunderstood and twisted in order to justify prejudice against a particular group...i.e. God hates homosexuals and destroyed two cities because of homosexuality, which is patently false.
http://lakeweedatarrowhead.net/4behavio.htm
One example of male-on-male rape is what conquering armies inflicted on the conquered, the aim of which was to humiliate to the extreme, reducing the conquered male to the role of a lowly passive woman, who was considered little better than a slave. Another example is what individual men or groups of men or gangs did when they wanted to hurt and humiliate men they didn’t like. Clearly this practice was not driven by sexual desire, but by brutality and hatred. Many scholars have concluded that this violence and humiliation, male-on-male gang rape, is what the men of Sodom attempted to do to the 2 strangers (angels) in the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis 19 . In other words, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was the attempted male-on-male gang rape or extreme lack of hospitality [1], not homosexuality.
-
Vidiot
Quendi - "I think the organization feels that not only is it circling the drain, but the speed of that circling is increasing."
That's another reason why I suspect the GB is trying to pare the R&F down to size...
..they know its in danger of circling the drain, can't stop the swirl, and have - for bettor or worse - chosen to deliberately "manage" the decline in the hopes of salvaging something out of it, rather than have it all crash and burn around them (because that would be the ultimate proof that they weren't "God's Earthly Organization" after all - a prospect which is simply unacceptable to them).
With cushy digs in Warwick for the GB and their elite, and easy-peasy trolley work for the R&F, they're offering incentives for the loyalists to stay, whilst alienating any (otherwise sincere) members who feel increasingly dismayed because the religion doesn't even remotely resemble the one they grew up with anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's all part of some overarching "master plan"; the WTS is reactive, not proactive.
It's simply how it's trying to adapt to a radically different environment from the one that it had originally evolved in (clumsily and unsuccessfully, IMO).
Another factor contributing to the decline was summed up really well by Data-Dog in this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/282196/1/BOE-2014-07-11-Use-of-ministerial-servants-where-the-number-of-elders-is-limited#.U9ghbdT4Cmw
-
Apognophos
To build on what RedhorseWoman said, we have plenty of modern-day accounts of men sodomizing other men as an act of violence, like Amadou Diallo, and there are plenty of hazing incidents of this nature being reported all the time in schools (and not being reported in the military).