Marital Relations

[Sketch]

I started a new post ALL BY MYSELF!!! time for nilla waffers and a nap!
This is a continuation of another thread that got hi-jacked (sorry). This is a thread to discuss what the bible says is or is not allowed to happen between two consenting married couples (biblically defined as between ONE man and ONE woman - for the lawyers out there)


Rom 1:26,27 -

That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

Let's start here, with "contary to nature". Do you know of any other animals, in the animal kingdom, that do it? That have oral sex with each other? Do monkeys, or apes engage in such activities? The fact is, NO they don't.

How, about smoking, do you find any other animals, rolling and smoking a cigarette, or cigars? No, they can be taught by humans to a degree to do so, but the answer is still no they do not know how or what they are doing. Just because mankind was endowed with intellegence and the ability to invent such things, and much time has passed, since Paul wrote his letters to the Romans to invent such ideas. Do you think that they are exempt from being call, or clasified as being "contrary to nature"?

Good reasoning, would say NO![/b]

your good reasoning might, but RESEARCH says otherwise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual...ex_for_pleasure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Sex_for_pleasure)

"Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. Researchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and situational sexual behaviour) and a range of other practices among animals other than humans. Related studies have noted diversity in sexed bodies and gendered behaviour, such as intersex and transgender animals."



Let's look at "loose conduct", how would you fit consider oral sex, as an action outside the realms of "loose conduct". Just because you have a marriage license before all of mankind, and under the sight of Jehovah, does that give you the right to practice loose conduct between you and your marriage partner, in secret? No, it doesn't.[/b]

Why not? Show me a scripture that bans ANY sexual act soley between husband and wife?



1 Corinthians 6:9-11
What! do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were....

Now then, let's look at the above scripture, from the angle, that it is also for our benefit as the potenial great crowd to be gathered just before Jehovah destroys the stubborn leftover unrighteous people who wish not to be a part of any heavenly directed system, and sign off as there is no God but the eight king.

So below, I have not attempted to water down the message of Paul, but have attempted to adapt it in such a way, to what it may have looked like, If the apostle Paul knew, that we would be at this point in time, and was still alive today to see how it would apply to the great crowd at the end of the system of things. It is only an attempt to help clarify, not change God's word, but if you do not see my point, then I will remove it.[/b]


I don't see your point. What I'm seeing is that you are calling a couple who has oral sex the equivalant of a practicing homosexual. is THAT what you're saying?? because I don't see what you want to see. show me ONE SCRIPTURE, only ONE that limits what a husband and wife can do together in the privacy of their own bedroom. just one. one scripture and I will concede the point.




The bible doesn't say much on the on the subject, by the subject makes me feel uncomfortable.[/b]

Thats EXACTLY why we need forums like this to talk in. a LOT of topics make me uncomfortable, but here we have at least SOME anonymity... That, and the fact that YOU may want to do something or like something that the bible is MUM on, yet other people put their opinion out there as FACT.

[dgibson]

Ok, let's make it plain and simple for you. Oral or anal sex is defined as sodomy. A marriage license, does not make it legal for it to happen within a marriage arrangement.

[Sketch]

Ok, let's make it plain and simple for you. Oral or anal sex is defined as sodomy. A marriage license, does not make it legal for it to happen within a marriage arrangement.[/b]

okay, now again, you're talking MAN's laws... show me in the BIBLE. show me. thats ALL i ask. if you can't do that, then your points are mute. in fact, sodomy in the USA is only illegal in Virginia... (see http://www.sodomylaws.org/) and if you've ever had to drive in northern VA, then you know how screwed up those people are...

Lets add condoms into the conversation... not "natural" by any means, but the bible says nothing about condoms? the bible says NOTHING about sex for pleasure. does that mean we can only do it for procreation and not recreation?? giving someone their "due" could mean many different things... it could mean sex, it could EVEN mean "oral sex".... it could mean the $5 you borrowed... or "respect".... etc... we usually take it as sex in general.

The FACT is that the bible is vague in various ways that one could make up any law and try to prove it by the bible... but in reality its just their opinion... just like this issue. Call it what you want - but don't call it for other people.

[Berean]

the bible says NOTHING about sex for pleasure. does that mean we can only do it for procreation and not recreation??[/b]

Actually, the Bible does say something about it... just read Proverbs 5:19, where Solomon makes clear that sex is not just for procreation. As for oral sex, I frankly do not know if the Bible specifically means that when talking about things that are against nature. Anything that's against nature can hurt your relationship with Jehovah of course, if it becomes an obsession. However, it is a decision that a married couple will have to make in the end, and they will be held responsible for that decision. The congregation should not judge about what goes on behind closed doors, in my opinion, unless it is directly identifiable as a sin. So as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on this particular matter.

[Sketch]

I stand corrected... Thanks Berean. Too bad I'm a leg man...

[Nash]

Hi folks.

I've been quite busy lately so I have not had much time to participate on the board, but hopefully I'll be able to continue to contribute regularly.

Personally, I believe that what a married couple wishes to do sexually is their own business, and those decisions should be made by the married couple alone. I don't think that oral sex is wrong, and the bible doesn't say that oral sex is wrong. Of course, it would be wrong to force one's mate to that practice if that mate doesn't want it.

Nash

[dgibson]

The bible is silent on many matters in detail, even blood transfusions, but the principle of nature cannot be applied with all fairness to one combination, and not the other.

For instance, you may survive a blood transfusion, but the reality is, you will likely have complications as a result of the mixing of another persons blood with yours. Sarcosis is a possiblity, but the medical profession, is not going to admit to causing you problems with blood transfuions, when they have saved your life, and you may sue them for causing another problem along the way.

My point is, that Jehovah didn't go into detail with many of the sins, "do's and don'ts," in the bible, because of the length of the avenues it would take everyone, with the "WHAT IF'S", would be never ending.

So, we have to look around and see that certain things are not good for us, even though the bible doesn't mention it specifically. That doesn't mean that we have the right to dictate, and micro manage everyone elses life either, according to our percieved biblical standards.

Everyone will answer for their own behavior, to Jehovah God.

So, if two adults go beyond the natural behavior while in the procreation love making mood, they best call the elders of the congregation immediately, and schedule an appointment with the local elders for disclosure of said behavior, because some of these ones druel over the details that come out in your private life. (note the sarcassum)

[Kenneth]

...

[Nambo]

One thing we have to remember Brothers, is that... SEX IS FROM SATAN!

At least thats whet the society seem to want us to belive even if they dont come out and say it.

I was at a public talk where the Elder said that if a married couple had sex then they must immediatly get up afterwards, both have a bath or shower, and wash the sheets.
I wonder how that would effect love in a marriage when you have to go to work the next morning? I would just do it in the bath.
It does show the societies attitude towards anything sexual, a Victorian attitude and also according to Brother Franz, Knorr was very prudish indeed and insured this attitude was learnt by all his aides who would continue his doctrines of men after he had gone.

Let me tell you though....SEX IS FROM JEHOVAH!

Its one of the most pleasant feelings that helps us bond even more with our spouses and share in Jehovahs act of creation.

If Jehovah though sex was a nessasary evil, why did he make Humans with the ability and desire to mate constantly, rather than the rest of the animal kingdom who mate once a month or even just once a year?

Why did he make our bodies so sexually differant, look at how attractive woman are, I know I do, primary sexual characteristics such as the breasts, are generally far more obvious than those in the animal kingdom, and brothers, did you ever look "down there" at yourself and wonder why it needed to be so big?

Imagine how the world would be on Jehovahs side if sex was avknowledged to be from God and Satan was the one said to condemn sex, everyone would be going to church praising and thanking God, which is precisely why Satan has stolen sex, made mankind feel that God is trying to deprive us of something wonderfull that we really cannot help wanting to do.
Why,even the act of eating from the tree in Eden he has tried to claim it was sex he was giving mankind!

So dont let Satan discolour your view of this gift from Jehovah.

Not to say that it shouldnt have its restrictions however, because when youve lived in a Childrens home where the 4 year olds stare at the light trying to make themselves go blind, "because thier mummies didnt want them", you realise why sex outside of marriage is condemned.

Christian principles against selfishness etc should also be considered, or any act that is inspired by lust that afterwards results in a dirty feeling of guilt should be our guide as to what not to do, because such acts have indeed defiled the marriage bed in that they have made you feel something beautifull, clean and sacred, has turned into something dirty and unclean.

"All things are clean to clean persons"

Maybe somebody could remind me of where that scripture is.
Maybe it also means "everything is dirty to dirty persons"?

[Gabriel]

Well put!

[Jeshurun]

Sexual relations bring a deep emotional connection between two people, which is really a beautiful thing. But Satan's world promotes sexual promiscuity, which is extremely destructive in every way.

It's the constant bombardment of sex that we all have to face everywhere we go that makes it so difficult.

For people who love Jehovah and his laws, and understand that he insists on monogamy for good reason, we're sickened after we give in to sexual desires just for the sake of sex. The problem is, that sick feeling doesn't last very long, and then the hormones take over again. But I have discovered that it really is possible to shut it off, if you stay on this DB or e-Watchman all day and all night and have no life and never go anywhere and never turn on the TV or the radio.

:icon_neutral:

[dgibson]

"Even as congregation elders accord to their brothers and sisters the right to exercise their personal conscience in matters where the Scriptures are not explicit, so, too, the elders have a right to exercise their own consciences as to their view of those engaging in questionable actions. If they sincerely feel that the actions of a congregation member in these matters are such that they could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service within the congregation, that is their prerogative.—1 Tim. 1:19; 3:2-12; 5:22."

Isn't that a wonderful key, to the door of anyone's private life within the congregation? I'm sure that it has been used, and abused over and over again.

Example: I can't recommend you for literature servant, if I know you have been practicing something I consider dirty. You haven't been practicing dirty things have you? Have you been bathing after sex?

[Kenneth]

In my opinion for what's it worth sex between a man and woman should be kept clean. Any practice that calls into question uncleanness needs to be avoided like the plague. Better to have abstained and it be acceptable than to engage and discover it to be a sin.



Kenneth

[Shibboleth]

I believe this subject was brought up on the old DB and was locked, so I will put my 2 cents in before it happens again.



Proverbs 5

18 (http://) Let your water source prove to be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth, 19 (http://) a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly.[/b]

I will try and not get to graphic in my verbage. If you are intoxicated with your wife's breasts which could also get into sucking or manipulating them for pleasure that is a form of oral sex. There are no if ands or buts about it.

What goes on behind closed doors stays behind closed doors. If a wife or husband is uncomfortable with an act then there should be no prodding or urging your spouse to do things they do not feel is right.

There are only a few things in the bible that Jehovah condemned concerning sexual realtions :
Fornication
Adultry
Homosexuality
Beastiality



regards,

Shibboleth

[Sketch]

There are only a few things in the bible that Jehovah condemned concerning sexual realtions :
Fornication
Adultry
Homosexuality
Beastiality[/b]

Unless of course, it fits into the grand scheme of things (i.e. Judah, Lot, etc...), then its okay... lets not forget multiple wives...

[Jeshurun]

There are only a few things in the bible that Jehovah condemned concerning sexual realtions :
Fornication
Adultry
Homosexuality
Beastiality[/b]

I really like that Proverb, Shibboleth, thanks.

In Satan's world, for people like us, sometimes it can be extremely difficult to find the right marriage mate, which would leave all sexual relations out of the picture. What happens then is, sometimes people marry the wrong mate for the wrong reasons. And then we have lifelong commitments that become a major problem.

Sometimes you find the love of your life, and the elders make sure that your relationship never gets as far as marriage, because of their sticking their judgmental noses where it doesn't belong. "Well, he's not a ministerial servant, he's not a pioneer, he doesn't keep up with his hours, he keeps bad associations".

I have news for them. I get more hours in now preaching from my pulpit at work than I ever did going door to door. And it isn't the hours that count, it's who's listening. The best part is, I don't have to keep track of my hours anymore.

[Shibboleth]

The problem is that Satan is the one whom made sexual relations unclean. He perverted it to the point where even the discussion of it is taboo.

[dgibson]

"I have news for them. I get more hours in now preaching from my pulpit at work than I ever did going door to door. And it isn't the hours that count, it's who's listening. The best part is, I don't have to keep track of my hours anymore."

I agree with you Jeshurun, that the quaility of preaching, giving the right answers to wondering minds, at the exact moment needed, is far more productive, than counting door to door hours, while sipping on a cup of hot coffee with three others in your car group. While waiting for the timid householder to finally say, "get lost, I have my own way of thinking about God right now, and I don't wish to join your group of mixed up bible prophesy weather forcasters, nor their micro-managed association standards".

You see, the way I think about it, people don't need to be gathered, they need to be comforted. It's the remaining ones, that are invited to be a part of the new covenant, and share in the heavenly reward, (the 144,000 less those that have died) that need to be gathered, and policed by each other according the scriptural standards. They are the true brothers, and sisters that the bible speaks to, from the books of Matthew to Revelatons, in all the letters to the congregations.

Where's the comfort in condemning everyone outside the WTBTS Org. as being wicked people deserving of eternal death? When it seems, the true Brothers and Sisters of the Christian greek scriptures, can't seem to agree themselves, or get themselves gathered together, (who belongs, and who doesn't) in the spirit and truth on many parts of the bible, nor its application towards themselves? They really need to get in full agreement with each other, first, in all congregations, from small town village, to west coast LA, to back woods Africa, before trying to set our standards of behavior at such a limited amount of movement.

One Example:The old people in small town Usa, cringe at the fact that a person like Prince is a JW. Or that a person like Michael Jackson could ever have been a Jw in good standing before Jehovah. Well where did these people learn to be so non-accepting, if not from those who transmitted this type of attitude from the platform, or through the over the dinner chatter with circuit overseers etc.

I guess I better stop here, before I get booted for causing trouble.

Love
Dgibson

[juffowup]

One thing we have to remember Brothers, is that... SEX IS FROM SATAN!

At least thats whet the society seem to want us to belive even if they dont come out and say it.

I was at a public talk where the Elder said that if a married couple had sex then they must immediatly get up afterwards, both have a bath or shower, and wash the sheets.[/b]

This is not the society's position, official or otherwise. This is a brother being a looney, which happens all the time. One of the many traps we can fall into is "brother so and so said something patently rediculous, therefore this is what the society advocates." There are problems enough without looking for one.

I've heard brothers at a district level rail about sisters wearing denim skirts. This was obviously hooey. What many didn't know is that this brother was sternly talked to about keeping his personal opinions out of his talks and will probably never give a platform talk at a convention ever again.

I am leary of ever assigning someone a position that they don't come right out and say. I think we do too much "reading between the lines," and it is this loose interpretation of what the society teaches (and thus what Jehovah commands) that leads many into imbalanced lives and bitterness.

[Kenneth]

There are times when brother's from the platform make statements and the audience hangs on his every word, especially those who are new in the organisation. Some even give elders godlike status, and when their opinions are wrong the wider ramifications can be enormous. I know of a situation where the elders and others believed that an individual was unsuitable for a particular marriage mate and made their views known even though not directly. The couple have been married now for over 20 years and are doing well. However, if the congregation had had their way the couple would not have been married.


I real am sick and tired of people putting over their personal opinions when there are no scriptural guidelines. I wish they'd just be silence and keep their thoughts and views to themselves. What business is it of the elders to play the part of the spiritual policeman when a couple are married, they have no right.

However, the societies did give some sound advice on the matter some time back and that was to 'keep sex clean'. Each has to deicide for themselves what that means. I did state in the post above that "Any practice that calls into question uncleanness needs to be avoided like the plague. Better to have abstained and it be acceptable than to engage and discover it to be a sin."





Kenneth

[juffowup]

I real am sick and tired of people putting over their personal opinions when there are no scriptural guidelines. I wish they'd just be silence and keep their thoughts and views to themselves. What business is it of the elders to play the part of the spiritual policeman when a couple are married, they have no right.[/b]

Word, bro. You can edit that spiritual policeman part to include just about any personal decision or difference in taste a person might have. I have found that being just a plain old brother in good standing to give me excellent freedom of speech in confronting elders with attitude and bias problems. I'm not "reaching out", or holding some office they can threaten to take away, which is really the only weapon they have to use against us.

They say something rediculous, just call them on it, it has worked great for me. Hasn't made me many friends on the elder body, but I've had a few of the elders tell me they were glad I said something, they always wanted to say the same thing, but for some reason couldn't.

[Nash]

Hi Juffowup! B)

"They say something ridiculous, just call them on it, it has worked great for me. Hasn't made me many friends on the elder body, but I've had a few of the elders tell me they were glad I said something, they always wanted to say the same thing, but for some reason couldn't."

It has been my experience that many elders and servants won't state their personal opinions for fear of being ostracized by the remainder of the servant body or for fear of losing their privileges.

Nash

[juffowup]

Hi Juffowup! B)

"They say something ridiculous, just call them on it, it has worked great for me. Hasn't made me many friends on the elder body, but I've had a few of the elders tell me they were glad I said something, they always wanted to say the same thing, but for some reason couldn't."

It has been my experience that many elders and servants won't state their personal opinions for fear of being ostracized by the remainder of the servant body or for fear of losing their privileges.

Nash[/b]

Exactly, which is why I don't hesitate to drop the hammer. "You can't fire me, I already quit!!" :ban_dance01:

[dgibson]

Pauls words, "but that is what some of you were." indicates that sinning people will be chosen for the 144,000 heavenly positions.

I wonder how many days, we will have to be sinless, in order to be saved at the end of the system of things. 7 days? 77 days? I hope its just one day, or less in my case, because I'm a slow at learning.

[Sketch]

I wonder how many days, we will have to be sinless, in order to be saved...[/b]

How exactly does one go "sinless"?

[eyes&ears]

I have to admit when I first started reading this topic, I had no idea in what direction it would go. However it was discussed with dignity. Anyway needless to say, I do not understand and don't want to understand why folks cannot keep their private sexual preferences and marital business inside their private bedrooms. I do not understand this and as I repeat I do not want to understand it.

Deep down inside ourselves I truly believe with MY WHOLE HEART, WHOLE SOUL AND EVERY ONCE OF MY BEING THAT WHEN WE COME TO KNOW JEHOVAH'S MIND ON MATTERS, AND HOW HE HAS DEALT WITH CERTAIN ISSUES IN THE PAST, LEAVING US SO MANY EXAMPLES AND SUCH LOVING DIRECTION --- AND WE ARE STILL NOT SURE OF CERTAIN MATTERS IN THIS AREA , WE DO HAVE A FEELING IF NOTHING ELSE (CONSCIENCE) OF WHAT JEHOVAH'S THINKING IS AND WHAT MAY BE acceptable and not acceptable to Jehovah, ESPECIALLY WHEN Jehovah is not specific in matters such as these. I believe this very strongly. (MY OPINION AND BELIEF) (also sorry for the long run on sentence)

Jehovah does not leave us hanging out there in confusion. 1Cor 14:33 and 40. Humans are the ones who complicate and confuse matters because of their wants and not necessarily their needs or wanting to do things the way Jehovah directs. James 4:17 Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.

I BELIEVE JEHOVAH DIRECTS OUR ATTENTION ON MATTERS THAT ARE REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT AND HE GIVES US THE MORAL SENSE AND CONSCIENCE AND TRUST TO DO THE RIGHT CLEAN AND LOVING THING THAT WILL HONOR HIM WHEN HE DOES NOT SPELL SPECIFIC AREAS OUT TO US. HE IS TRUSTING US TO MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICES (JUST MY OPINION)

SO IF YOU DO NOT KNOW OR CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IN THIS AREA OR OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT SPELLED OUT FOR US THERE IS ANOTHER OLD SAYING: "WHEN IN DOUBT LEAVE IT OUT"


MY OPINION BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY.

BETTER TO BE LEAD BY THE SPIRIT AND NOT THE FLESH IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IF WE ARE CONFUSED OR NOT SURE.

I CANNOT AND WILL NOT BELIEVE WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS CLEAN AND UNCLEAN IN THE EYES OF JEHOVAH IN THE MARITAL ARRANGEMENT REGARDING OUR INTIMATE PERSONAL AND PRIVATE SEXUAL PREFERENCES.

Anything I want to do and I am not sure of I use Jehovah and Jesus Christ as my barometer. I WILL NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO GET ALL TWISTED UP IN MATTERS SUCH AS THESE TO DO WHAT I WANT, WALK ON THE WILD SIDE OR GET AS CLOSE TO THE EDGE AS POSSIBLE. AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT ANY OF YOU ARE DOING THIS, I AM RANTING AND STATING MY OPINION AND EXPRESSING MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS.

I AM NOT SAYING ANYONE HERE JUST WANTS TO DO WHAT THEY WANT OKEY DOKEY, I AM JUST RANTING BECAUSE THIS IS A TOPIC THAT GRATES MY NERVES (SO PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH MY LOVING RANT)

As has been already said we will personally have to answer to Jehovah for our conduct. There is an old saying the world uses "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE." We will all reap what we sew and answer for our choices. WE cannot use the minds and consciences of others on such personal and intimate issues. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO JEHOVAH.

No, there is no law on this, however if we are lead by our love for Jehovah and not by our sex organs and flesh, heartfelt prayer to Jehovah and really wanting to know what to do, Jehovah will direct us IN HIS WAY AND NOT OURS ON THE MATTER OF ORAL SEX OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONABLE SEX ACT. BUT IF WE PREFER CERTAIN THINGS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS SEX OR ANYTHING ELSE WE WILL FIND A WAY TO WALK THE FINE LINE OR GET AS CLOSE TO THAT LINE AS POSSIBLE AND SAY, WELL THERE IS NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON THIS, THERE IS NO LAW ON THIS, JEHOVAH IS SILENT ON THIS.

IS JEHOVAH SILENT ON THIS REALLY? (HMMMM)

Not talking down to anyone, not trying to preach, teach or otherwise, not being prudish because I am a female. I just have strong feelings about certain areas and some things just tick me off.

I love you all and we all have our opinions and the right to discuss and respond tactfully, lovingly and with dignity to each other and rant and ramble sometimes, so this is my little rant and ramble but out of love only OKEY DOKEY.

Just my piddly peabrain couple of sense worth.

I love you all and you all are an encouragement to me and everyone else on board.

Love out to you all

Eyes & Ears.

ISAIAH 55: 6, 8, 9 AND 11

6) Search for Jehovah, you people, while he may be found. Call to him
while he proves to be near

8) FOR THE THOUGHTS of you people are NOT MY THOUGHTS, NOR
ARE MY WAYS YOUR WAYS, is the utterance of Jehovah

9) For as the heavens are higher than the earth, SO MY WAYS ARE
HIGHER THAN YOUR WAYS AND MY THOUGHTS THAN YOUR
THOUGHTS.

11) So MY WORD THAT GOES FORTH FROM MY MOUTH WILL PROVE TO BE
IT WILL NOT RETURN TO ME WITHOUT RESULTS, BUT IT WILL
CERTAINLY DO THAT IN WHICH I HAVE DELIGHTED, AND IT WILL
HAVE CERTAIN SUCCESS IN THAT FOR WHICH I HAVE SENT IT.

[dgibson]

Where, do you draw the line, within the congregation, as to how personal the ones in the lead, should get involved with individuals living together, unmarried couples?

Say, a man and women was living together, and they were in their late twenties, or thirties,or possibly older? They have an understanding, and friendship only, and choose to be close to one another. Because of many past experiences together, they have vowed to continue caring, and maintaining an open relationship with each other, maybe because they have no other family that they can trust, so they trust in each other.

Say one of them decided to come back into the truth, (or at the very least attend the meetings in hopes of being reinstated) but the living arrangement they have, that has been going on for a number of years.

Should the one who wants to be a part of the congregation in attendance, be forcfully encouraged to find other arrangements by the elders as a clause to their being reinstated, because it looks bad on the congregation?

[James]

Where, do you draw the line, within the congregation, as to how personal the ones in the lead, should get involved with individuals living together, unmarried couples?

Say, a man and women was living together, and they were in their late twenties, or thirties,or possibly older? They have an understanding, and friendship only, and choose to be close to one another. Because of many past experiences together, they have vowed to continue caring, and maintaining an open relationship with each other, maybe because they have no other family that they can trust, so they trust in each other.

Say one of them decided to come back into the truth, (or at the very least attend the meetings in hopes of being reinstated) but the living arrangement they have, that has been going on for a number of years.

Should the one who wants to be a part of the congregation in attendance, be forcfully encouraged to find other arrangements by the elders as a clause to their being reinstated, because it looks bad on the congregation?[/b]


Hello dgibson,

Not sure if you are saying if this is a platonic or intimate relationship?
If they are intimate, then of course they are living in sin and could not be reinstated. On the other hand, even if they were only housemates and were friends only-while not a sin, I would agree that it could be a stumbling block for the congregation and how could they witness to their friends and neighbors that knew of their living arrangement?
I do see that situation happening more and more to those in the world because of loose morals and financial strains. Also what prevents them from getting married if in fact they are intimate?

Thanks,
James

[dgibson]

Thank you, James

"If they are intimate, then of course they are living in sin and could not be reinstated."

I think your saying, If they are sleeping in the same bed at night with each other, they are living in sin. Is that correct? Or are you saying, that if they are having sex with each other, then they are living in sin? Where, and how, is the line drawn, and where is it, scripturally speaking, that the WTBTS, or any other christian religion group, is given the power to enforce such rules against individuals today, who do not wish to be ministers, but only associators until the end of the system?

Anyone, may respond, I'm not picking on you James.

I just want some of you powerful/speakers, to be able to boil it down to me, to an understandable reasoning, so that anyone, (even those who may have never read, or would never read the bible), can understand. Because they are out there, and because there are many of them.

[Nambo]

Thank you, James

"If they are intimate, then of course they are living in sin and could not be reinstated."

I think your saying, If they are sleeping in the same bed at night with each other, they are living in sin. Is that correct? Or are you saying, that if they are having sex with each other, then they are living in sin? Where, and how, is the line drawn, and where is it, scripturally speaking, that the WTBTS, or any other christian religion group, is given the power to enforce such rules against individuals today, who do not wish to be ministers, but only associators until the end of the system?

Anyone, may respond, I'm not picking on you James.

I just want some of you powerful/speakers, to be able to boil it down to me, to an understandable reasoning, so that anyone, (even those who may have never read, or would never read the bible), can understand. Because they are out there, and because there are many of them.[/b]

Hi dg, heres my take on this.

If said couple are having sex, then of course its a sin.

If said couple are sleeping together but not having any form of sex, (not sure if seeing each others nakedness is a sin?, but we will say they are not), then no, its probably not a sin, in fact its probably quite a nice thing, that two humans can share each others warmth and companianship without having to have sex, and maybe in old cultures or some parts of the world this might still be the case from necessity.

But you only have to look at the Michael Jackson case, where he rightly pointed out that there was something wrong with the rest of the worlds morals, that they couldnt sleep with children without sex being involved.

So, as has been pointed out, most people enjoy seeing bad in people, so if they see un-unmarried couple living in the same house, never mind the same bed, they are going to relish imagining and relating the sinfull goings on, especially if they are claiming to be Christians.

So, allthough I wouldnt have considered it a sin, it cannot really be permitted. For the danger that it might stumble a sheep-like-one from excepting the "truth".
The Biblical reasoning on this could be drawn from the scriptures that talk about not eating food sacrificed to idols in case it stumbles somebody weak.

Of course, this is an avenue where the Jehovahs Witnesses go to far in promoting thier doctrines of men above Loving Christian acts, so a lonely old Christian widow who would rejoice at the visit of a single young brother who joins her for a cup of tea after the field service where she can show him her old photographs and relate with pride her service to Jehovah, isnt allowed because, "the young Brother might not be able to control his sexual urges", !!, what sort of people do the FDS think we are!, even the worst of worldly folk dont stoop to that level.

Shame they dont protect children with as much gusto!

[Kenneth]

Should the one who wants to be a part of the congregation in attendance, be forcefully encouraged to find other arrangements by the elders as a clause to their being reinstated, because it looks bad on the congregation?[/b]

The simple answer to this is yes. It is a bad refection on the congregation and Jehovah. Not all things are unlawful but also not all things are advantageous. How do you prove that they aren't having relation to the wider community? JWs would be seen by society as no different to the rest.

There is no such thing as a plutonic relationship, it's a myth. A man and women who live together are courting disaster. The society's advice when courting couples are together they be chaperoned, they also recommend that opposite sexes not be along in the same room, that good advice also. Elders are told not to shepherded a sister on their own as some have fallen into the trap of fornication. I for one would never allow myself to be alone in the same company as a sister, they are standard I have upheld for the past 20 years. The society's policies my not be written in the bible but they are sound. However, as for visiting an elderly sister alone that you known well I have no issue with that one. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future if necessary. I have never seen or heard any unwritten rules on that one. When we consider this subject this is not about us it's about the reproach we can bring on Jehovah's name.

Kenneth

[Jeshurun]

Of course, this is an avenue where the Jehovahs Witnesses go to far in promoting thier doctrines of men above Loving Christian acts, so a lonely old Christian widow who would rejoice at the visit of a single young brother who joins her for a cup of tea after the field service where she can show him her old photographs and relate with pride her service to Jehovah, isnt allowed because, "the young Brother might not be able to control his sexual urges", !!, what sort of people do the FDS think we are!, even the worst of worldly folk dont stoop to that level.[/b]

It has been my experience with people in the world, that the ones who are the least trusting, and the most suspicious of others, are the ones who shouldn't be trusted. Sadly, many Jehovah's Witnesses have become untrusting, at the suggestion of the Governing Body, and due to the presence of thousands of pedophiles within the org whose identities are being concealed.

[Kenneth]

Of course, this is an avenue where the Jehovahs Witnesses go to far in promoting thier doctrines of men above Loving Christian acts, so a lonely old Christian widow who would rejoice at the visit of a single young brother who joins her for a cup of tea after the field service where she can show him her old photographs and relate with pride her service to Jehovah, isnt allowed because, "the young Brother might not be able to control his sexual urges", !!, what sort of people do the FDS think we are!, even the worst of worldly folk dont stoop to that level[/b]

Sorry but this one is new to me. In 20 years I have never come across this attitude towards the elderly and moreover I have never read it in any of the publications.

Kenneth

[Shibboleth]

But you only have to look at the Michael Jackson case, where he rightly pointed out that there was something wrong with the rest of the worlds morals, that they couldnt sleep with children without sex being involved.[/b]

There is a big difference in sleeping with your kids and sleeping with kids that are not yours or a relative of yours. :Yahoo_33:

[Nambo]

<div class='quotemain'>But you only have to look at the Michael Jackson case, where he rightly pointed out that there was something wrong with the rest of the worlds morals, that they couldnt sleep with children without sex being involved.[/b]

There is a big difference in sleeping with your kids and sleeping with kids that are not yours or a relative of yours. :Yahoo_33:
[/b][/quote]

You know Shibboleth, not all Children have parents of thier own.

Unless you have personally lived in that situation, you cannot understand the desperate need a young emotionaly neglected child has for some sort of adult contact.

My own case notes from the Childrens Society describe how, even with perfect strangers, I would gradually weedle my way closer until I ended up in thier lap, Such was the hunger a neglected Child has for some sort of affection.

Back then in the early 1960s, such behaviour was allowed, but I wonder if such comfort would be allowed these days in Childrens homes when for instance I read that children are no longer allowed on fire-engines at carnivals, for fear of alligations of in-appropreate touching.

Whilst the Michael Jackson view is to the extreme, (and I have no view as to wiether he is nievely innocent or a pedophile), I can see where he is coming from and hence I quoted him, for imagine a world where Children could be as close to any body they wish, (for we are all Jehovahs Children), where there was no danger of any impropriatry towards the child, and where the adult was free from the fear of false accusation to be able to be as close to unrelated children as animals such as elephants or Lions are to unrelated infants with the result of a strong and loving bond throughout the herd, the same as how much more of a loving community there will be for humans when infants no longer have to be taught not to talk to strangers because all strangers are eveil.

[Shibboleth]

But the thing is Nambo, Michael Jackson is a freak.

regardless, I feel for kids that don&#39;t get affection at home, so don&#39;t get me wrong. But I feel no remorse for MJ and his actions. Beause of his money he got off the hook again. This wasn&#39;t the first time he did this. He did it before and how many other kids fell into his "Jesus Juice" trap. I do in fact pity him because his parents did not raise him properly. It was under an iron fist with his dad. Also he was once a JW as well as some of his family. So I think his mental capabilities got warped somehow.

All in all would you let your kid sleep with Michael Jackson? I know I wouldn&#39;t.

regards,

Shibboleth

[Jeshurun]

Outwardly, Michael Jackson appears to be a confused, but wonderful human being. Only Jehovah can see what he would have been had he not been put under so much pressure as a very young child, and also at the same time pumped with massive amounts of female hormone shots to keep his voice from changing.

It was Satan&#39;s world that made a "freak" out of Michael Jackson, not the least of whom bearing the guilt is his father, who should have been a little closer to Jehovah&#39;s thinking, instead of going for the fame, fortune and power. That&#39;s exactly what the "elite" do.

I personally feel very sympathetic toward Michael Jackson. Who knows how those hormones twisted his brain. Certainly anyone who would have multiple plastic surgeries to make himself look like Diana Ross is not thinking clearly.

[Jinnvisible]

I think peoples should remove thier shoes and neckties before engaging in these acts. If the husband decides to leave his neck tie on it could get caught on something during the love play and he could die of strangulation. Also if an ambulance was called it would be a bad witness for the paramedics.

I think it is ok to listen to music whilst couples engage in these acts especially if they live in built up areas, or poor housing, where the sounds of thier acts might carry. I wouldn`t neccesarily recommend Prince or Michael Jackson records for this. Whales singing would be better. Then if the noises carry anyone hearing it would just think it was some whales. Perhaps special effects soundtrack might also work so long as there was no car crashes or gun shots as someone might turn up to help out or call the FBI. They might think you are the Waco Jacko branch Davidians.

[dgibson]

Isn&#39;t it really about jealousy?

People are always jealous about another person life, whom they see to have it better than they percieve their own life is, or was.

Some people of little means, or that are poor, have absolutley no idea, what problems come with having money, and or fame. They only are immediately negative towards them for how they dress or act within the frame of Televisions portrayal of the facts, which is somewhat like newspapers, whatever sells to more viewers, so they can attract more expensive commercial slots. Thus its a circle of commercialism, and we buy right into it, because their lives are so much different than ours.