Homosexuality & Religion

[Autodidact]

The one question I really wanted answered still sort of hasn't been answered.

What's God's beef with homosexuality -- or with oral sex or masturbation for that matter?

What's the big deal? Someone said it's because that's not what our no-no goodies were "designed" for, but we do things with our bodies that they weren't designed for all the time. I also don't get how people say sex is only procreative and everything else is lust but that we should "enjoy" sex -- that's contradictory.

Our eyes weren't designed for staring at computer screens; are we being sinful?
Our bodies weren't designed for leaping out of airplanes, are skydivers being sinful?

I already brought up the example of spitting up mucous when sick to clear our throats, something saliva wasn't designed for, is that sinful?

What is the REASON for God's condemnation of something so petty?

Well remember, YHWH is an Arab man from around 1000 B.C.E. He lives in a patriarchal, semi-nomadic/pastoral culture that practices polygamy, slavery, and child marriage. Male status is very important to Him. For a man to associate himself with the female role is demeaning to him. In particular, He is very concerned that Hebrews stop doing things that the people around them do, especially temple prostitution, both male and female.

This helps explain a lot of things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The one question I really wanted answered still sort of hasn't been answered.

What's God's beef with homosexuality -- or with oral sex or masturbation for that matter?

What's the big deal? Someone said it's because that's not what our no-no goodies were "designed" for, but we do things with our bodies that they weren't designed for all the time.

Even if this "design" claim is assumed to be correct, I don't think it works. It really just pushes the question back one step without really answering it.

Say that God did design our "no-no goodies" to work a specific way and doesn't like them being used any other way... why? What was the purpose behind that design?

 

[Autodidact]

Looking at religion as a meme, those that encourage their adherents to have lots of children and train them to believe the religion are going to reproduce at a higher than those that don't. So a religion that encourages heterosexual behavior for everyone is going to be "successful" in this Darwinian sense, and survive.

 

[painted wolf]

Looking at religion as a meme, those that encourage their adherents to have lots of children and train them to believe the religion are going to reproduce at a higher than those that don't. So a religion that encourages heterosexual behavior for everyone is going to be "successful" in this Darwinian sense, and survive.

At least until conditions change and it's no longer adaptive.
For example the resistance to birth control restrictions in developing and prosperous nations.

It isn't adaptive to have families to large to support... so the memes that drive that behavior are selected against. Even among those brought up with the meme.

wa:do

 

[Sententia]

According to Wikipedia this is the direct translation:

"Do not lie with a male as one would with a woman."

Leviticus 18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is exactly what lesbians are doing. Just sayin.

 

[Jeremiah]

Which is exactly what lesbians are doing. Just sayin.

Yes when taken literally then it would read that all females should not be sleeping with men and that, according to the bible, all females should be lesbians. As it says "Do not lie with a male as one would with a woman." It does not say only men should not lie with men, it just says "Do not".

So really the old testament does not condemn lesbianism but encourages it. It fact it is God's will that all females be lesbians.

Repent! You heterosexual female sinners and beg God forgiveness for your sinful heterosexual lifestyle!!

 

[Pegg]

You seem to be avoiding my question Pegg.

On what standard do you seperate gods laws into moral and ceremonial?

The ceremonial laws were the ones pertaining to the priests who served at the tabernacle.
(As you dont seem to trust the NWT, i will use other translations when quoting from scripture)
The following examples show that they pertain to physical cleanness and worship at the tabernacle.

NIV Lev 15:31 " 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place"

NIV Lev 16:4 He is to put on the sacred linen tunic, with linen undergarments next to his body; he is to tie the linen sash around him and put on the linen turban. These are sacred garments; so he must bathe himself with water before he puts them on.

NIV Ex 30:18 "Make a bronze basin, with its bronze stand, for washing. Place it between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and put water in it. 19 Aaron and his sons are to wash their hands and feet with water from it....Also, when they approach the altar to minister by presenting an offering made to the LORD by fire, 21
they shall wash their hands and feet so that they will not die. This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants for the generations to come."

NIV Numbers 19:11"Whoever touches the dead body of anyone will be unclean for seven days... 13 Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the LORD's tabernacle...18 Then a man who is ceremonially clean is to take some hyssop, dip it in the water and sprinkle the tent and all the furnishings and the people who were there. ...19 The man who is clean is to sprinkle the unclean person on the third and seventh days, and on the seventh day he is to purify him."


The moral laws on the other hand have to do with our personal behaviors and actions. They are the laws that prohibit us to act in certain ways.

 

[linwood]

The ceremonial laws were the ones pertaining to the priests who served at the tabernacle.
(As you dont seem to trust the NWT, i will use other translations when quoting from scripture)

I have no more mistrust of the NWT than I do any other version of the canon.
In fact in some areas it is a more accurate translation than most.
I have a copy here at home.
I simply realized I was making the mistake of discussing your theology using a different foundational text than that of your faith.
I was correcting my mistake

The moral laws on the other hand have to do with our personal behaviors and actions. They are the laws that prohibit us to act in certain ways.

Hmm..you seem to be missing my point.

The verse you cite gives no standard to separate "moral" from "ceremonial" law.

Please explain to me where this law falls, into moral or ceremonial?
It would seem to fall into the moral category according to the standard you`ve given.
Having to do with our personal actions.

Lev 20:13 “‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.

1:Is this entire law ceremonial according to your beliefs?
2:If 1 is correct do you base your beliefs of homosexuality on Paul's writings alone?
3:Is only a portion of this law ceremonial according to your beliefs?
4:If 3 is correct by what standard do you divide the law into ceremonial AND moral?

I am sincerely interested as I have never gotten a Witnesses stance on this subject which is odd since your theology is one I`ve had many lengthy face to face discussions about with your brethren.
I never brought up homosexuality or the standards of Jehovahs laws with them however.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[linwood]

So really the old testament does not condemn lesbianism but encourages it. It fact it is God's will that all females be lesbians.

Could a mod please delete Jeremiah's post before it goes viral?

We don`t need this getting out into the general female populace.
I for one want this discovery kept under wraps.

 

[Pegg]

I have no more mistrust of the NWT than I do any other version of the canon.
In fact in some areas it is a more accurate translation than most.
I have a copy here at home.
I simply realized I was making the mistake of discussing your theology using a different foundational text than that of your faith.
I was correcting my mistake

Ah I see, sorry i did miss that one.

Hmm..you seem to be missing my point.

The verse you cite gives no standard to separate "moral" from "ceremonial" law.
Please explain to me where this law falls, into moral or ceremonial?
Lev 20:13 “‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.

having sex is not a ceremonial law because sex has nothing to do with the tabernacle or the way the priests were instructed to offer worship and sacrifices.

1:Is this entire law ceremonial according to your beliefs?

No its not. The laws about sexual behavior are not ceremonial....they do not involve the way worship was carried out at the temple.

2:If 1 is correct do you base your beliefs of homosexuality on Paul's writings alone?

No. We understand about moral laws from the mosaic law code. The sexual laws are showing us how God wants us to behave and his view of them will not change.

3:Is only a portion of this law ceremonial according to your beliefs?

Yes, the ceremonial portions have to do with how worship is carried out at the temple/tabernacle. The laws to do with ceremony pertain to 'worship' God gave instructions on how the priests and people were able to come before him....these are the ceremonial laws.

4:If 3 is correct by what standard do you divide the law into ceremonial AND moral?

The separation occurs where a law is specifically about how worship is carried out or if the law pertains to how individuals must behave in their every day life.

So a law that says one must wash 3 times before entering the temple is a ceremonial law because it has to do with worship.... whereas a law that says one must provide food for the hungry is a moral law because it does not directly involve worship.

I am sincerely interested as I have never gotten a Witnesses stance on this subject which is odd since your theology is one I`ve had many lengthy face to face discussions about with your brethren.
I never brought up homosexuality or the standards of Jehovahs laws with them however.

Thank you for your reply.

Here is a snipet directly from one of our publications about the stance of JW's on homosexuality:

"Beginning with the 1960’s, when homosexuals became more open about their practices, many churches debated the matter, then accepted them as members. Some churches now even ordain homosexuals as clergymen. In order to help sincere persons who had questions on these matters, the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses also discussed these issues. But among the Witnesses, there was never any question as to how homosexuality would be viewed. Why not? Because they do not treat the Bible’s requirements as if these were merely the opinions of men of another era. (1 Thess. 2:13) They gladly conduct Bible studies with homosexuals so these can learn Jehovah’s requirements, and such persons may attend meetings of the Witnesses to listen, but no one who continues to practice homosexuality can be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.—1 Cor. 6:9-11; Jude 7."


This may not be what you wanted to hear, but we stick to the bible on all matters because we do view it as the word of God...a word which has not changed its standards, nor should it be changed just because the world changes.

 

[linwood]

Ok, understand I am attempting to learn if and how your standards for ceremonial and moral laws are comparative to most Protestant churches.
Actually what you have given me above is more of a standard than I`ve ever received from any Protestant sect so..thank you.

I do understand the standard you described above and can appreciate it.
However I still don`t see what Biblical edict or ideology you base it upon.
It seems wholly unBiblical in it`s origins.
It seems as if it were designed by modern man actually, meaning within the past few centuries.
Considering you`ve already given me more than I`ve come to expect I won`t push that point however.If you wish to or can clarify it`s basis I will be appreciative, if not that`s fine as well.
I won`t pursue it in this context.

What I want to understand is which part of Leviticus 20:13 is moral and which is ceremonial as you`ve said concerning this verse...

Yes, the ceremonial portions have to do with how worship is carried out at the temple/tabernacle. The laws to do with ceremony pertain to 'worship' God gave instructions on how the priests and people were able to come before him....these are the ceremonial laws.

I am going to assume that the ceremonial portion of Lev.20:13 is the part that decrees homosexual acts should be punished with death while the moral part of Lev 20:13 is the part that decrees "man shall not lie with man."
If this assumption is wrong please correct me and tell me which part is moral and which part is ceremonial.

Your standard for judging a law OR portion of a law as ceremonial is due to it`s concern with temple behavior/rites as stated...

Yes, the ceremonial portions have to do with how worship is carried out at the temple/tabernacle. The laws to do with ceremony pertain to 'worship' God gave instructions on how the priests and people were able to come before him....these are the ceremonial laws.

My question to you is what does putting a man to death have to do with worship carried out in Temple?
If my assumption about which part of Lev.20:13 is ceremonial is correct and it is the decree of death that you consider ceremonial I must ask what makes you think it meets your own stated standard?

It would seem to me the entire law is a "moral" law under the standards you`ve given with no mention of Temple worship the decree of death should indeed be a moral imperative for a Witness.
As you`ve said...

The separation occurs where a law is specifically about how worship is carried out or if the law pertains to how individuals must behave in their every day life.

Do you believe those who commit homosexual acts should be put to death?
If not why not?

 

[painted wolf]

Isn't sexual activity part of the cleanliness requirements for going to the temple?
For example certain types of sex made you "unclean" and required specific sacrifices to take care of?

So, how does that make sex not part of how one worships?

wa:do

 

[Pegg]

However I still don`t see what Biblical edict or ideology you base it upon.
It seems wholly unBiblical in it`s origins.
It seems as if it were designed by modern man actually, meaning within the past few centuries.
Considering you`ve already given me more than I`ve come to expect I won`t push that point however.If you wish to or can clarify it`s basis I will be appreciative, if not that`s fine as well.
I won`t pursue it in this context.

do you mean to ask how it is we 'determine' which is ceremonial and which is moral?

or how we come to conclude that some are ceremonial and some are moral?

What I want to understand is which part of Leviticus 20:13 is moral and which is ceremonial as you`ve said concerning this verse...

I am going to assume that the ceremonial portion of Lev.20:13 is the part that decrees homosexual acts should be punished with death while the moral part of Lev 20:13 is the part that decrees "man shall not lie with man."
If this assumption is wrong please correct me and tell me which part is moral and which part is ceremonial.

Ok i think i understand what you are asking here. Lev 20 discusses how sexuality can rightly be expressed by Gods standard of morality. So the law that a male should not lie with a male is the morality that the isrealites were expected to adhere to.

There is no 'ceremonial' part to this law though. As far as I'm aware (and ill do a bit more research into it just to be sure) God did not make the 'punishments' a part of his worship so they could not be said to be ceremonial in any sense.

The morality expressed in Leviticus was expected to form the basis of the Isrealites behavior and standards .... these behaviors and standards are what made them acceptable worshipers of God. When they failed to adhere to these strict requirements, they were deemed as unfit to worship God and thus were cut off from such worship by being put to death. So really, they are only related in that if one was morally unclean, then that person was not fit to participate in the worship of God.

Your standard for judging a law OR portion of a law as ceremonial is due to it`s concern with temple behavior/rites as stated...

My question to you is what does putting a man to death have to do with worship carried out in Temple?

A person who did not adhere to the moral laws was not permitted to participate in the ceremony of worship. This is why the moral laws had to be adhered to...anyone who did not, could not remain a part of the nation because the entire nation was 'dedicated' to Jehovah.

If my assumption about which part of Lev.20:13 is ceremonial is correct and it is the decree of death that you consider ceremonial I must ask what makes you think it meets your own stated standard?

death is not a part of ceremonial worship...God hates the death of anyone and said so through the prophet Ezekiel “‘As I am alive,’ is the utterance of the Lord Jehovah, ‘I take delight, not in the death of the wicked one, but in that someone wicked turns back from his way and actually keeps living.’” Ezek. 33:11

It would seem to me the entire law is a "moral" law under the standards you`ve given with no mention of Temple worship the decree of death should indeed be a moral imperative for a Witness.
As you`ve said...
Do you believe those who commit homosexual acts should be put to death?
If not why not?

I think this is something that most people have insufficient understanding of. The Jews were chosen as a 'holy' nation to God. They were used as living examples of how God expects us to live, and the consequences of when we dont live by them. But the nations were not bound by Gods laws back then...the isrealites did not have to go to people of the nations and put them to death because they were not following Gods moral laws...these laws were only binding on the Isrealites.
But it would only be binding on them until the Messiah arrived. From that point on, God would not hold the Isrealites to account for such things under the mosaic law because the purpose of the law would have been finished.


So as a witness, i say no, homosexuals should not be put to death, nor should adulterers or thieves or drunkards or any other sinner.
There is a door open to those who want to worship God....we have to 'choose' to walk through that door. Just as God did not force his morals on the people of the nations in ancient times, nor does he do so today.

 

[Duck]

At least until conditions change and it's no longer adaptive.
For example the resistance to birth control restrictions in developing and prosperous nations.

It isn't adaptive to have families to large to support... so the memes that drive that behavior are selected against. Even among those brought up with the meme.

wa:do

But wouldn't the mal-adaptation re: large families just reinforce the meme that religious requirements for uncontrolled breeding are Darwinian in nature be reinforced? Darwin's principles regarding evolutionary processes apply equally to the unsuccessful adaptations as to the successful (we just tend to focus on the successful traits, mostly because maladaptive traits tend to deselect and aren't as noticeable).

 

[Duck]

Ok, understand I am attempting to learn if and how your standards for ceremonial and moral laws are comparative to most Protestant churches.
Actually what you have given me above is more of a standard than I`ve ever received from any Protestant sect so..thank you.

I do understand the standard you described above and can appreciate it.
However I still don`t see what Biblical edict or ideology you base it upon.
It seems wholly unBiblical in it`s origins.
It seems as if it were designed by modern man actually, meaning within the past few centuries.
Considering you`ve already given me more than I`ve come to expect I won`t push that point however.If you wish to or can clarify it`s basis I will be appreciative, if not that`s fine as well.
I won`t pursue it in this context.

What I want to understand is which part of Leviticus 20:13 is moral and which is ceremonial as you`ve said concerning this verse...



I am going to assume that the ceremonial portion of Lev.20:13 is the part that decrees homosexual acts should be punished with death while the moral part of Lev 20:13 is the part that decrees "man shall not lie with man."
If this assumption is wrong please correct me and tell me which part is moral and which part is ceremonial.

Your standard for judging a law OR portion of a law as ceremonial is due to it`s concern with temple behavior/rites as stated...



My question to you is what does putting a man to death have to do with worship carried out in Temple?
If my assumption about which part of Lev.20:13 is ceremonial is correct and it is the decree of death that you consider ceremonial I must ask what makes you think it meets your own stated standard?

It would seem to me the entire law is a "moral" law under the standards you`ve given with no mention of Temple worship the decree of death should indeed be a moral imperative for a Witness.
As you`ve said...



Do you believe those who commit homosexual acts should be put to death?
If not why not?

To piggy back on this particular line of reasoning, do JW's eat shellfish? As I read the verses regarding eating shellfish (I acknowledge that I may have an incorrect translation vis a vis your religion, if so, please correct me), the prohibition on eating shellfish is related to not eating anything without fins (paraphrasing after several martini's, sorry), and is not related directly to entry into, nor to purification before, the Tabernacle. Which leads me to conclude that under your given argument regarding ceremonial laws vice moral laws, that the prohibition against eating of shellfish (or pork, rabbit, shark, and undercooked beef for that matter) is a moral prohibition as it is not directly related to the priesthood. Is this interpretation correct? If not, how is that interpretation juxtaposed with the verses brought up earlier in which Jesus stated that "not one jot or tittle" of the Law was lifted?

 

[Pegg]

To piggy back on this particular line of reasoning, do JW's eat shellfish? As I read the verses regarding eating shellfish (I acknowledge that I may have an incorrect translation vis a vis your religion, if so, please correct me), the prohibition on eating shellfish is related to not eating anything without fins (paraphrasing after several martini's, sorry), and is not related directly to entry into, nor to purification before, the Tabernacle. Which leads me to conclude that under your given argument regarding ceremonial laws vice moral laws, that the prohibition against eating of shellfish (or pork, rabbit, shark, and undercooked beef for that matter) is a moral prohibition as it is not directly related to the priesthood. Is this interpretation correct? If not, how is that interpretation juxtaposed with the verses brought up earlier in which Jesus stated that "not one jot or tittle" of the Law was lifted?

the verse you speak of come from Deuteronomy 14.
2“ For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God, and Jehovah has chosen you to become his people, a special property, out of all the peoples who are on the surface of the ground.
3 “You must eat no detestable thing of any sort....9 “This sort out of everything that is in the waters YOU may eat: Everything that has fins and scales YOU may eat. 10 And everything that has no fins and scales YOU must not eat. It is unclean for YOU..."


The prohibition is not 'directly' related to worship at the tabernacle for the reason that this law wasnt only for the priests but for all isrealites including the children.

It also wasnt a moral law because later Jesus made all foods clean to eat and showed that these things are from outside of us and therefore they 'cannot' defile us.
Mark 7:18 "So he said to them: “Are YOU also without perception like them? Are YOU not aware that nothing from outside that passes into a man can defile him, 19 since it passes, not into [his] heart, but into [his] intestines, and it passes out into the sewer?” Thus he declared all foods clean"

So these two verses alone show that the dietary restrictions were neither ceremonial nor moral laws.

Some of the regulations simply had the purpose of helping to keep the Israelites clean physically as well as spiritually, mentally, and morally.
They had laws requiring them to bathe themselves, bury their excrement, quarantine the contagiously ill, and to avoid certain foods....all of these promote good health and hygiene. I mean, can you imagine how difficult it would be to keep shellfish alive in a desert? We know how dangerous a bad oyster can be...it would be a very difficult thing to eat certain foods under such conditions and by avoiding such foods the isrealites would have been spared from the food poisoning that is even quite common today.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

That's nice for ancient Judea. Not so much for a modern multicultural, multifaith, country. Civil Rights should always trump religious taboo.

 

[Meow Mix]

Solution to this problem:

Religious mumbo jumbo makes you believe ridiculous nonsense about victimless crimes like homosexuality and eating pork or shrimp.
Stop believing the voodoo and you stop believing the stupid nonsense about victimless crimes.

Problem solved.

Ok that's probably really unfair for me to say, it's Friday and I've been out... will probably tell people how sorry I am tomorrow for possibly offending them. But seriously. If your determination to cling to a bronze age belief leads you to believe stupid and hateful things maybe it's time to stop believing them.

 

[gnomon]

So really the old testament does not condemn lesbianism but encourages it. It fact it is God's will that all females be lesbians.

You converted me.

Only wish they developed the video recorder in biblical times.

Because who wouldn't want to watch Biblical lesbianism?

Though I'm sure it's already on the internet.

I'll go check.

 

[Atomist]

Solution to this problem:

Religious mumbo jumbo makes you believe ridiculous nonsense about victimless crimes like homosexuality and eating pork or shrimp.
Stop believing the voodoo and you stop believing the stupid nonsense about victimless crimes.

Problem solved.

Ok that's probably really unfair for me to say, it's Friday and I've been out... will probably tell people how sorry I am tomorrow for possibly offending them. But seriously. If your determination to cling to a bronze age belief leads you to believe stupid and hateful things maybe it's time to stop believing them.

As much as I agree with you I have to point out the logistic of a society being so against homosexual relationships... namely that it does have an effect on producing offspring, which is a goal of all successful surviving societies. Hence why movies/tv shows always have a storyline of a man and women falling in love as that leads to marriages and for some reason marriage tend to lead to procreation... (not to mention the societal pressures for men to have sex with as many women as possible...)

Being intolerant to homosexual relationships, while wrong, is a smart move (from perspective of societies)... especially given that homosexuality isn't a black and white trait, but rather a spectrum and if you can get a good % that are on the fence or even favoring homosexuality to be in a heterosexual relationship and reproduce... the society gains a survival advantage.

Note: society can be replaced with religion and it would still make sense.