Homosexuality and how should a JW or 'Study' view it?

by AnitainFlorida 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnitainFlorida

  I am sure the Subject is not very descriptive and for this I appologize.

  I would like some assistnace in Biblical references that say how Homosexuality should be viewed and how one should deal with another that is homosexual or that has homosexual friends even if they non study's daughter says she and this other girl aren't 'doing anything'

  I know this is long winded, so I will just now finally get to the point.

  I am a grandmother that has recently taken back up studying after a 1-2 year pause. When I had first started studying, my daughter was also studying and we had our study togeather as I was staying with she and her husband because she had medical trouble and could not care for their 3 children when he was gone to work. Unfortuantly, before I had ever began my studying I was pagan:( Actually it has only been within the last year that how wrong that was has finally sunk in.

  She had decided to quit studying and (though I know it wasn't an excuse) so did I. Shortly there after the husband and wife began going to "Munches" to meet a hopeful 3rd party for their marriage bed. I told her I did NOT believe this was good for their marriage and I did not want to babysit their children while they were out doing this. So.. they began to lie about where they were going. I moved out about 6 months ago.

  Even TODAY we had a 'talk' because I had ofered to watch her 3 year old and the daddy could drop him of on his way to work and she could have some time to her self while the other 2 children were at school. That was just fine by her until I told her I didn't want to babysit him if she was going to go "hang out" with her "girl friends." She cannot understand my position since she says they aren't "doing anything" and will be just "talking"

  I know there is a place where we are told to stay away from all that but can only find the one in Rev that refers to Bablyon the Great and she is trying to say that is RELIGION even though I liken the whold rot to paganism.

  Can a JW please post some references on this and maily to do with associations, even if a person isn't "activly" pursuing it?

  And PLEASE, no pro-homosexuality:(

  Thank you very much

  the Granny
• 

  beebee

  I doubt that you will get much sympathy here on this board given that we encourage freedom of thought, not repression.

  I will ask though, why do you care what two consenting adults do? It really is none of your business.

  I agree though that if you object to what your daughter may do when you are watching her kids, by all means do not watch them. I certainly would not support my daughters in any behavior they chose to engage in that I did not approve of. This would include things like drug use or "ditching the kids" for casual sexual encounters. Your list of what you do not support should [obviously] include those things you would choose not to support.

  But beyond that, you must know that any objections you raise will only create problems in your relationship and will NOT change her mind. Most of all, quoting scriptures will not change her mind but will reduce your credibility with her. A more credible argument is a discussion of your feelings and how you genuinely feel she is putting herself at risk. For example, you mentioned that you felt a "three-some" would put her marriage at risk. I presume you told her why you feel that way.

  Maybe it changed her mind, maybe it didn't, but at least if it is discussed calmly and rationally, she may think before she acts. Acting judgemental will only shut down her communication with you.

  Keep in mind that respecting her choices, even when you disagree, is how you keep open your relationship as two adults and as mother and daughter. Allowing her to live her own life, even when her decisions seem wrong to you, is not the same as condoning things you do not approve of, it is allowing her to live her adult life, as one.

  If you don't respect her, she won't respect you either. Share your concerns. Mothers should certainly do this, but in the end, she alone lives her life and she has to live with her decisions.
• 

  Dan-O

  Well, "granny" ... keep in mind that I haven't considered myself a Dub for a long, long time ... If a person is going to accept Dubdom and the Bible in its entirety, then homosexuality is on the 'no-no list'. Heck, they used to publicly stone people for that sort of thing. But I always had the sense that God kinda likes seeing two women together. The Apostle Paul's prohibitions in the New Testament were all about 'men who lie with men'; he didn't say anything about 'women who lie with women'. Even if you go back to the Old Testament, the early books of the Bible delineate between men who commit bestiality and women who commit bestiality. So why does Paul address only 'men who lie with men' but not 'women who lie with women'? My questions about this sort of thing are probably a factor in why I stopped going to meetings in 1983.
• 

  Valis

  I call BS!
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Why not view it scientifically? It is a phenomenon that occurs regularly in many species including humans. You can think of it kind of like left-handedness. Most people are right-handed, but a non-insignificant minority are left-handed. Throughout history, some people have been prejudiced against left-handed people, but really, when you think about it, that's just plain silly.

  Hope that clears things up.

  SNG
• 

  Leolaia

  Dan-O....I think you may have missed Romans 1:26-27. However this passage has usually been read out of context; Paul is specifically talking about pagan idolatry and the libertinism and prostitution that accompanies Greco-Roman idolatry. He is not talking about general homosexual conduct and even less about a sexual orientation or identity. His rhetoric refers to those whose sexual conduct is a consequence of their ungodly idolatry and philosophies. Of course, Paul has an anti-homosexual attitude in this passage; this was very typical of the era (cf. para phusin "against nature" is also used to refer to homosexual relations in Philo of Alexandria, Spec. Leg. 3.39 and Josephus, Contra Apion, 2.273, and Pseudo-Phocylides' advice that "women not imitate the sexual role of men", line 192). The attitude in Romans 1 also has a very clear political dimension. The Jews were subjugated by the Romans and their traditions were under threat by Hellenistic influence, and the traumatic events of 168-164 BC especially drove this home; the sexual mores of the Greeks and Romans were radically different from traditional Jews...for instance, Plato refered to homosexual love as superior and purer than heterosexual love which he portrayed as lustful and earthly. Paul, and traditional Jews, instead lumped homosexual relations -- particularly those that occur with pagan cults -- together with "lusts", and this as much a rejection of Greco-Roman culture as it was a statement about homosexuality itself. This is especially clear in Romans 1 which is a polemic against Gentiles who persist in pagan religion, whose sexual practices are part of divine judgment against them.
  
• 

  Dan-O

  "Dan-O....I think you may have missed Romans 1:26-27"
  
  Nope. Not at all. I read that book front to back, including Romans. I still can't remember anything specifically discouraging lick sisters. And I've heard those who claim that Paul's statement in that passage refers to women who go 'contrary to nature' by assuming headship over their man or by aborting their children or whatever. I disagree with their presumptions.
• 

  Leolaia

  Nope. Not at all. I read that book front to back, including Romans. I still can't remember anything specifically discouraging lick sisters. And I've heard those who claim that Paul's statement in that passage refers to women who go 'contrary to nature' by assuming headship over their man or by aborting their children or whatever.

  Such alternative interpretations are imho exegetically inferior to the usual one (referring to sexual conduct). (1) Male homosexual relations are clearly referred to in Romans 1:27 ("abandoned the natural use of the female and became inflamed with lust for each other, males with males") and the homoiós "likewise" in the first clause of the verse indicates that Paul is talking about sexual conduct on the part of women which is paralleled to that of the men, (2) phusikén khrésin "natural use" occurs in both verses, again indicating parallelism, and khrésis has a well-established use in Greek as a periphrasis for sexual intercourse, (3) the allusion to the women in v. 26 is prefaced by a general statement about the Gentiles being delivered eis pathé "into passions", which suggests that the conduct of the women referred to in the same verse was sexual in nature (cf. pathos "passion" listed alongside porneian "fornication" and epithumian kaken "bad desire" in Colossians 3:5 and orexei "lusts" in v. 27), (4) even earlier, in v. 24, Paul says that "God delivered them in the desires (epithumiais) of their hearts to impurity of degrading their bodies (sómata autón) with each other," a statement that clearly anticipates v. 26-27 and which specifically refers to desires and conduct involving their "bodies", and (5) as mentioned earlier, para phusis "against nature" is used by Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Plutarch (Moralia, Erotikos) to refer to non-heterosexual sexual relations, particularly between males. In view of all this, infanticide or headship is hardly in view here.
  

  However, I am not entirely convinced that lesbianism per se is alluded to in Romans 1:26. It certainly is possible, considering the parallelism in v. 27 and the use of para phusis in the literature. But granting Paul his own creative mind and recognizing that sexual conduct is under consideration in this passage, it is also possible that Paul is referring to prostitution (particularly temple prostitutes involved in idolatry) or the sort of non-coital relations that occurred between women and men in Greco-Roman cult orgies. This is because Paul seems to understood phusis "nature" as "in accordance with the intention of the Creator," cf. 1 Corinthians 11:14 where hé phusis auté almost has the sense of "the way God made us". Paul regarded prostitution as against nature, or "against the will of the Creator", as in 1 Corinthians:
  

  "Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' " (1 Corinthians 6:15-16).

  Here Paul cites Genesis 2:24, the divine command about marriage as uniting man and woman as "one flesh", and uses it to forbid relations with prostitutes by the members of the body of Christ (who are instead supposed to be united with Christ). Since prostitution (or orgies for that matter) subverts the "natural" order of unions through marriage, Paul could have had them in mind and thus referred to women "exchanging" (metéllaxan) their "natural use" (e.g. sexual relations within marriage) for one "contrary to nature", e.g. prostitution and orgies. Since Paul is not specific, the text is ambiguous as to what is being referred to here. The most important thing to recognize is the causal connection (cf. dia touto "through this" in v. 26) Paul draws between such sexual conduct and idolatry. Just as women engaged in idolatry have "exchanged" their natural use, so have idolators "exchanged" (again, metéllaxan in v. 25) the truth about God for the pagan lie of idolatry. The picture is of Gentiles who should know the truth about God from the created world but have renounced this truth in favor of their own idolatrous practices which has led them to act "contrary to nature". According to Paul's opinion, people depart from God's will by engaging in idolatry so in his wrath God has delivered them to their own passions to depart from his will in other ways.
• 

  Dan-O

  Leolaia, you're forgetting Genesis 1:26 ... "Let us make man in our image." And if God made man in His image ... since most guys get turned on watching two chicks go at it ... you can infer that the Almighty also likes watching women together. :-P
  
  Bottom line: some biblical passage make specific reference to both male and female acts. Pauls' scriptures refer specifically only to male acts.
  
  Ergo, even the Apostle Paul liked the notion of girl-on-girl.
• 

  steve2

  Hell, granny, why bother getting quotes from a book that legitimises genocide in order to ban something else such as private behaviour involving consenting adults? More to the point, Why put a message on this site saying you don't want any pro-homosexual replies. For a mature woman, you're way off target.