Ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[Tonus]

Are you suggesting that homosexuals can get baptised as JW as long as they're not practicing?

Keep in mind that for JWs (as for many Christian denominations) homosexuality is not a thing that people are, it's a thing that they choose or it is a condition they are afflicted with.  Therefore, the term for them typically refers to the act and not the person or 'condition.'  After all, the Bible doesn't refer to homosexuals, but to the act of gay sex.  As far as Yahweh is concerned, homosexuality describes an act and not a person.  In that context, the term "practicing homosexual" is no different from "homosexual."

I think that the progress that western society has made in accepting homosexuality has forced religion to deal with the issue in different terms.  I think that the original view would have been that there is no such thing as a homosexual person, just people who have gay sex because they're perverts and degenerates.  Religion is being forced to address the reality that some people have a natural attraction to the same sex, and that having gay sex is not deviant behavior for them-- heterosexual sex is.  So it's not unusual to see the term homosexuality become muddled in a conversation like this.

JWs do not recognize homosexual unions/marriage, and a gay person who is sexually active is a fornicator and therefore ineligible to become a baptized member of the organization.  Considering that such action by a baptized member would likely result in being disfellowshipped, it's better to refuse to allow a baptism under those circumstances, which would effectively entrap the person.  However, a person who is not a fornicator (gay or hetero) is free to be baptized as he/she is showing devotion and loyalty to god by abstaining from sinful practices.

Regarding the acceptable minimum age for baptism, there isn't one.  A person is expected to understand scripture and be old enough to understand the commitment he or she is making when joining the organization as a baptized member.  For most people raised in the faith, this won't happen until their mid-to-late teens (I was 17 when I was baptized, having wanted to do so since I was around 14 and made to wait by my mother) and sometimes even later.  But I have heard of baptisms of people as young as nine and eleven, when they were announced at conventions or in literature.  It is disturbing to see such young people promoted as good examples, as it might pressure parents into pushing their own children into early baptism.  Baptism for the JWs is a kind of contract between the individual and the organization, and the penalties for rejecting the organization can be very harsh if a person's family and friends are baptized JWs.  To have a non-adult enter into such an arrangement strikes me as a very bad idea.

[robvalue]

Randy: Yes, I have you on ignore and just take the occasional peek. Fair enough, I shall stop discussing you and your posts. I apologize if I have been rude or caused upset, that wasn't my intention. I found some of them to be interesting talking points but on reflection I shouldn't have been discussing them while having you on ignore. Sorry about that.

---

Hey I had a psychotomy! I mean an epiphany. I've always thought of sexuality as being a "sliding scale", but I realized today that's too simplistic. That would make it seem like someone right in the middle is less attracted to men and to women than the corresponding straight ends. So I was thinking it should be two sliding scales, going from 0 to 100, one for attraction to men and one for women. And the two are independent, they don't have to add up to 100 or anything. So for example maybe I'm 95 women, 8 men, say. Is that a decent kind of model? Someone who's bisexual might be 90 women 85 men, or 70 women, 98 men, or whatever else. Would any of our bisexuals be willing to comment on whether that makes sense or if I'm talking balls?

[Cato]

But a christian can defend these claims with the scriptures.

Big fucking deal. I've already said that this is the basis for their bigotry, continuing to point at scripture doesn't get the Christian anywhere in the argument. For scripture to have any weight in a secular society a Christian will have to demonstrate God and that God is the author of the Bible. Until then believers are blindly accepting and following the dicta of ancients that were hell bent on tribal control and increasing the flock. Christians have absolutely no justification for what's written in scripture. All you have is blind obedience.

[Randy Carson]

Randy: Yes, I have you on ignore and just take the occasional peek. Fair enough, I shall stop discussing you and your posts. I apologize if I have been rude or caused upset, that wasn't my intention. I found some of them to be interesting talking points but on reflection I shouldn't have been discussing them while having you on ignore. Sorry about that.

---

Hey I had a psychotomy! I mean an epiphany. I've always thought of sexuality as being a "sliding scale", but I realized today that's too simplistic. That would make it seem like someone right in the middle is less attracted to men and to women than the corresponding straight ends. So I was thinking it should be two sliding scales, going from 0 to 100, one for attraction to men and one for women. And the two are independent, they don't have to add up to 100 or anything. So for example maybe I'm 95 women, 8 men, say. Is that a decent kind of model? Someone who's bisexual might be 90 women 85 men, or 70 women, 98 men, or whatever else. Would any of our bisexuals be willing to comment on whether that makes sense or if I'm talking balls?

Rob-

Quick comment...and I'm late to work!

I spent a couple of hours reading all of the threads in which Tim O'Neill has posted. Every post.

I have to say, he covered a lot of ground and answered a lot of questions that pop up here over and over and over...some were yours, of course.

If you have not reviewed that recently, it might be interesting for you to go back and re-read all of that again.

He's an atheist. No question about that. But he argues for the historical Jesus brilliantly.

[vorlon13]

Randy: Yes, I have you on ignore and just take the occasional peek. Fair enough, I shall stop discussing you and your posts. I apologize if I have been rude or caused upset, that wasn't my intention. I found some of them to be interesting talking points but on reflection I shouldn't have been discussing them while having you on ignore. Sorry about that.

---

Hey I had a psychotomy! I mean an epiphany. I've always thought of sexuality as being a "sliding scale", but I realized today that's too simplistic. That would make it seem like someone right in the middle is less attracted to men and to women than the corresponding straight ends. So I was thinking it should be two sliding scales, going from 0 to 100, one for attraction to men and one for women. And the two are independent, they don't have to add up to 100 or anything. So for example maybe I'm 95 women, 8 men, say. Is that a decent kind of model? Someone who's bisexual might be 90 women 85 men, or 70 women, 98 men, or whatever else. Would any of our bisexuals be willing to comment on whether that makes sense or if I'm talking balls?

I have found this helpful:

sexuality can be represented in an individual by 3 facets; what  a  person actually does tp start with.  If you're a man, and always have sex with a woman, always with another man, or various ratios is one part of it, you can do the math.

Another part is how one views themselves.  Regardless of your man woman sexual activity ratio, you can view yourself any way you want.  (I've encountered men with remarkable discrepancies in how they view themselves vs. what they are actually doing.) (really)

And lastly, emotionally, if the individual is capable of loving another person, what, if any, are the gender constraints on the object of affection?



I've encountered men that were only having sex with other men, that nevertheless had a sincere belief they were hetero.  (Yes, Dick B, I am talking about YOU!!)  I encountered a very nice married man many years ago, truly deeply in love with his wife, whom was the only person he ever had sex with, and he viewed himself 100% hetero.  Yet he fell in love with me.  That was quite a jolt for all 3 of us.

I've encountered men of all persuasions that in my judgment are 100% incapable of falling in love with anyone regardless of gender.  In regards to myself, I can't rule it out, but it would be profoundly unlikely for me to fall in love with a woman.  No offense ladies, but you simply do not 'register' on my radar.  I probably come off as  misogynistic, but I feel that for most people that are actually that way, they take an active approach to being that way, I'm just instantly distracted by men, if any are around, when women are present.  I feel it's different in my case, I don't hate women, they would have to 'register' for me to have strong feelings in that regard. I am 100% indifferent. I don't see that as misogynism.

It can make for funny situations;  a few times women have attempted to employ 'feminine wiles' to get me to do something.  They are extremely lucky if I even notice.  A local woman here, I realize, wants me to ask her out.  I picked up, eventually, on her interest, but totally misconstrued what she wanted and I tried to set her up with a (hetero) friend of mine.  It wasn't what she wanted at all.  Not to make light of her feelings, but it took me a while to work all that out and I found it humorous just how totally clueless I am at 'reading' women.  A guy says hi to me and I'm on full tactical alert, a woman throws herself at my feet and I'll assume she lost her contact lens.

To summarize:

sexuality is the 'sum' of 3 factors:

*what you're actually doing
*how you're looking at it
*what you're potentially capable of emotionally

I'm 100% gay on all 3 (no surprise there) but I sure have been surprised by men I have encountered that cannot claim 3 100%s on the hetero scales.

[Longhorn]

Historical Jesus' existence doesn't get you anywhere....just a reminder

Quick comment...and I'm late to work!

Considering you're posting from a PC and 2 hours ago you said you need to leave in 15 minutes, hell yea you're late.

[robvalue]

Vorlon: Thank you, that was very interesting. I see, I hadn't considered those other factors (image and love/emotional attachment) as part of sexuality. Regarding image... this is the most flexible one I imagine? I mean, there is some element of choice here, or at least possibility to change?

As for love, it is something I've thought about before. For me, it wouldn't be necessary for there to be a physical sexual element to a relationship to love someone and want to be with them, and only them. Of course it's very enjoyable, but I see it as a bonus rather than a necessity. This raises the question of why I couldn't form a similar bond with a man. But I really don't think I could, and I suppose that is part of my sexuality.

[robvalue]

Rob-

Quick comment...and I'm late to work!

I spent a couple of hours reading all of the threads in which Tim O'Neill has posted. Every post.

I have to say, he covered a lot of ground and answered a lot of questions that pop up here over and over and over...some were yours, of course.

If you have not reviewed that recently, it might be interesting for you to go back and re-read all of that again.

He's an atheist. No question about that. But he argues for the historical Jesus brilliantly.

Yes, I did just that when he turned up and I made an ass out of myself the other day. He does generally make a good case, and I remember now that it was him who convinced me there was something to the HJ case. Before that I thought there was absolutely nothing to it. I don't agree with everything he says, but he made some valid points.

[Whateverist]

Rob, can you explain to me why the question of Jesus having been a historical person from around that time should make any difference to me? I'm willing to concede that so that we can get on to the more interesting question of what reason there is to subscribe to the divinity claims.

[robvalue]

I don't think it should make any difference to you at all

I mean, I suppose if you don't accept there ever was a single person who the story is based on, then there can't also be a magical version of that person either. But conceding a historical person makes no difference towards the supernatural claims, other than to stop the squabbling over this moot point. I guess this is why christians fight so hard to make this case, because it is a requirement... but then they often stop, as if establishing a historical Jesus is enough to just believe the rest of the drivel.

The story seems to me to be almost entirely mythical in nature, so to say it is "based on" a real person means almost nothing. It may as well not be. "Inspired by" would be more accurate! We can confirm a handful of facts, at best. The rest of the gospels are just hearsay rumour-mill talk.

That is my take on it all anyway! I'm even willing to concede Jesus said and did everything as described in the bible for the sake of argument, except the supernatural stuff. It all makes no difference. That last hurdle is impossible. Personally, to conclude that the whole story didn't at some point borrow elements from another real person seems very difficult, but I don't need to worry about that when facing supernatural arguments. I can hand over everything else, just as I did in the reliability of the NT thread.