Go back
NT acceptance of homosexuality

NT acceptance of homosexuality

Spirituality


Originally posted by @galveston75
Lol. You know very well what hey are.
Well, don't be coy about it. I am asking you what they are. I have never been a Jehovah's Witness myself and the Jehovah's Witnesses I talked to in Australia and Japan and the UK never got on to this topic. If you have a lifelong friendship with a homosexual, according to your religious beliefs, what would be the spiritual consequences for you?


Originally posted by @fmf
Well, don't be coy about it. I am asking you what they are. I have never been a Jehovah's Witness myself and the Jehovah's Witnesses I talked to in Australia and Japan and the UK never got on to this topic. If you have a lifelong friendship with a homosexual, according to your religious beliefs, what would be the spiritual consequences for you?
OK. Will be back in the morning.

1 edit

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @eladar
He deleted it?

Where does Paul say not to make the death penalty the penalty?

Why would Paul feel the need to describe the known penalty of death?

Within the Jewish community Jewish law would be carried out. This is how the Romans worked. What was the Jewish penalty for homosexuality between two men?
It would be best if we could find a contemporaneous source confirming that the death penalty was in place. Of course people killed people back then, for various reasons. I'll do some searching.


Originally posted by @fmf
Well, don't be coy about it. I am asking you what they are. I have never been a Jehovah's Witness myself and the Jehovah's Witnesses I talked to in Australia and Japan and the UK never got on to this topic. If you have a lifelong friendship with a homosexual, according to your religious beliefs, what would be the spiritual consequences for you?
Alright back. OK I apologize with those comments but it has been discussed many times over the years here. Maybe you missed them.
If this friend was someone who as they say "came out" and you did not know they were of a sexual orientation that was not what you thought and it was against what Jehovah approves, then to be loyal to Jehovah or to be loyal to this friend could be a hard decision but one that has to be made. If one were to continue to associate with that friend and did not follow Jehovah's commands to not associate with them, then they could face a decision by the congregation to make bible based actions to help you see the dangers of this association. If one were to ignore the advice of the congregations bible based views, one could possibly be disfellowshipped.
Also it would be very clear by this info that one would not start a friendship like this already knowing the bibles views.

Remember the scriptures where Jesus basically said "he came not to bring families together but to separate them". I can't find that scripture at the moment but this is the jest of it. But anyway what did he mean by this? He was saying that what he taught and the way he set up the congregations and with the messages that he said and that his followers would teach and live by...it could tear families apart because of the divisions it would cause. If one has a friend or even a family member that "practices" sin willfully, the friendship or association with that person is very restrictive, if any at all.


Originally posted by @galveston75
Alright back. OK I apologize with those comments but it has been discussed many times over the years here. Maybe you missed them.
If this friend was someone who as they say "came out" and you did not know they were of a sexual orientation that was not what you thought and it was against what Jehovah approves, then to be loyal to Jehovah or to be loyal ...[text shortened]... in willfully, the friendship or association with that person is very restrictive, if any at all.
An answer to the question I asked you would be more interesting.

1 edit

Originally posted by @galveston75
If this friend was someone who as they say "came out" and you did not know they were of a sexual orientation that was not what you thought and it was against what Jehovah approves, then to be loyal to Jehovah or to be loyal to this friend could be a hard decision but one that has to be made.
If this homosexual were not a member of your family and not a member of your organization's congregation, exactly what jeopardy would you face if you were his (or her) friend? What action do you believe "Jehovah" might take against you personally?


Originally posted by @fmf
If this homosexual were not a member of your family and not a member of your organization's congregation, exactly what jeopardy would you face if you were his (or her) friend? What action do you believe "Jehovah" might take against you personally?
Do you have neo nazi friends? The kinds of friends you hang out with? I am talking about the real deal not people around here that get called one.

1 edit

Originally posted by @eladar
Do you have neo nazi friends? The kinds of friends you hang out with? I am talking about the real deal not people around here that get called one.
OK then. So, what action do you believe your god figure will take against you personally if you have a neo-nazi friend or a homosexual friend?

1 edit

Originally posted by @fmf
OK then. So, what action do you believe your god figure will take against you personally if you have a neo-nazi friend or a homosexual friend?
Answer my question.

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @js357
It would be best if we could find a contemporaneous source confirming that the death penalty was in place. Of course people killed people back then, for various reasons. I'll do some searching.
Further on this:

“In the gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus we learn that the Jewish authorities could not sentence anyone to death:

Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” “But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. (John 18:31 NIV)

“It seems that the Romans initially allowed the Jewish authorities to exercise capital punishment, but withdrew the privilege some time during Jesus' life.”

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute

This means that in Romans, Paul was constrained from stating that the due penalty was death, but he was not required to speak against it. But he did speak against it. Roman law, which he supported in Romans 13, did not allow Jewish law to execute criminals. So, effectively, death for man on man sex was outlawed with Paul’s tacit agreement.


Originally posted by @eladar
Answer my question.
No. Because it is a red herring. If you think your question was somehow pertinent to the conversation that I was having with galveston75 then you are an oaf. If you realize that it's a red herring, you can legitimize it and ask people to address it by starting a thread about Having Neo-Nazi Friends or some such.


Originally posted by @fmf
No. Because it is a red herring. If you think your question was somehow pertinent to the conversation that I was having with galveston75 then you are an oaf. If you realize that it's a red herring, you can legitimize it and ask people to address it by starting a thread about Having Neo-Nazi Friends or some such.
OK so is your question about having homosexual friends. You are a hypocrite. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


Originally posted by @eladar
OK so is your question about having homosexual friends. You are a hypocrite. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I am not a hypocrite at all. You simply don't understand the discussion that's going on.


Originally posted by @js357
Further on this:

“In the gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus we learn that the Jewish authorities could not sentence anyone to death:

Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” “But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. (John 18:31 NIV)

“It seems that the Romans initially allowed the Jewish authorities to exerci ...[text shortened]... e criminals. So, effectively, death for man on man sex was outlawed with Paul’s tacit agreement.
I guess Jesus did not save the adultress.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.