Posts by MeanMrMustard

2

Sooo. how did this come about?

by MeanMrMustard in

discuss:.

.

mmm.

News Funny - Enjoy!

by MeanMrMustard in

.

mmm.

MeanMrMustard

I wonder if he said, "If you have any information, please contact..." - and the switchboard lights up! THERE HE IS!

MMM

3

Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible

by Oubliette in

the recent topics addressing the shamefully bigoted talk by jw gb member, anthony morris, on the subject of homosexuality got me thinking.

what the heck is up with the gb's obsession with this subject?.

as far as i can determine, jesus never said a single thing in reference to homosexuality.

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)

46

Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible

by Oubliette in

the recent topics addressing the shamefully bigoted talk by jw gb member, anthony morris, on the subject of homosexuality got me thinking.

what the heck is up with the gb's obsession with this subject?.

as far as i can determine, jesus never said a single thing in reference to homosexuality.

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

45

Reminder: Hate speech on this forum is NOT tolerated

by Simon in

some of the comments on the anthony morris topics have been despicable.. if someone is an idiot or a biggot then they are damaging themselves.. if 'we' start posting vile filth, insults and threats then it doesn't convince anyone other than we're probably as bad..

MeanMrMustard

" When did Jehovah move to New York?"

Jesus moved there in 1914, and Jehovah moved there in 1918 - duh!

MMM

46

Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible

by Oubliette in

the recent topics addressing the shamefully bigoted talk by jw gb member, anthony morris, on the subject of homosexuality got me thinking.

what the heck is up with the gb's obsession with this subject?.

as far as i can determine, jesus never said a single thing in reference to homosexuality.

MeanMrMustard

@Oubliette:

It implies nothing of the kind.

Reading things that aren't there into what others say is such an annoying trait.

It is a fact: according to the gospels, Jesus didn't address the subject. What that means is clearly open to interpretation.

Fair enough.

My opinion is that much of what is considered "Christianity" is an invention of Paul and not based solely on the alleged teachings of Jesus.

Exactly. But that doesn't help out Christianity vs. Homosexuality. It seems that they still stand quite opposed to each other. Which leads into the next comment...

All that being said, my point is this: The entire bible only has a handful of direct references on the subjects. For every scripture addressing homosexuality there are roughly 4,500 on other subjects.

So why do the GB members spend a clearly disproportionate amount of time on this subject?

My guess is that some of them, Anthony Morris comes to mind, are battling their own homosexual urges and deal with it by demonizing it. It is clearly an obsession with them.

Do they really spend more time on it than other chruches? It just doesn't surprise me at all given the amount of news coverage given to homosexual-related stories. From gay marriage debates to Phil Robertson to DOMA, etc. It is always in the news, it seems. To me it makes a lot of sense that those Christians that do believe the Bible is inspired by God, including those books written by Paul, would give more sermons on the sins of homosexuality in increasing frequency.

Now, this doesn't mean the GB isn't fighting gay tendencies. They surely might.

MMM

46

Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible

by Oubliette in

the recent topics addressing the shamefully bigoted talk by jw gb member, anthony morris, on the subject of homosexuality got me thinking.

what the heck is up with the gb's obsession with this subject?.

as far as i can determine, jesus never said a single thing in reference to homosexuality.

MeanMrMustard

@frankiespeakin:

You wrote:

Just because Paul heard some voices in his head doesn't mean he's inspired from almight God and what he says is gospel truth. Paul had a life changing vision on the Damascus Road, their is no reason to conclude that his self proclaimed authority issued from God. Paul was a fanatic for his own veiwpoints un willing to reason otherwise.

So Christians should reject Paul? Let me be clear - there are a couple different thoughts going through my posts. The first of which doesn't have much to do with your posts, but has a lot to do with the OP. In the opening post, the user stated that Jesus never said anything against homosexuals. Rather, it was Paul. This implies that perhaps Jesus was OK with homosexuals (or at least we don't know), and therefore implies that Christians should be more open to welcoming gay and lesbian men and women into the church. There are churches that do this, and there are gay Christians. To me, I have a hard time reconciling the two (homosexuality and Christianity). The only way I can see to reconcile the two is to basically give up one of the things that would make a Christian a Christian - bibical insiration/inerrancy. Once a Christian is willing to set aside the parts of Pauls letters that condemn homosexuality, why should any other portion be held sacred? I don't see a reason. I think you are approaching this from a perpective of athiesm - which is fine. However, for Christians, for those individiuals that claim to believe in the Bible as inspired, the statement in the OP (that Jesus never said anything against homosexuals) is meaningless.

I followed up with questions about your use of "homophobe" because I feel it is a subjective, overworked term with little meaning. This was separate from the comment on the OP.

MMM

46

Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible

by Oubliette in

the recent topics addressing the shamefully bigoted talk by jw gb member, anthony morris, on the subject of homosexuality got me thinking.

what the heck is up with the gb's obsession with this subject?.

as far as i can determine, jesus never said a single thing in reference to homosexuality.

MeanMrMustard

You wrote:

'That might be correct, that and the degree of how far you take your judgements of persons of a different sexual persuasion, the remarks you make and the actions you take against those considered "homosexuals".'

I see. Is there some sort of objective way of knowing when these boundaries have been passed? For example, if I take my judgements so far as to *think* that a homosexual is "sinning" and is "leading an immoral life", is that "homophobic"? What if I say what I believe? The "degree" you speak of, it seems purely subjective.

Bringing it back to my original point, surely if Paul was "homophobic", a gay Christian(or pro-gay Christian) would necessarily have to reject Paul. If so, does that gay Christian (or pro-gay Christian) reject all of Pauls letters too?

MMM