Wow, I can't tell if the if the WT is getting much worse, or I am just more sensitive to it.
Note that when they are putting forward something they feel strongly about, they emphasize that they are the slave, the FDS, and that if we resist it, we may be resisting Jehovah.
When they realize that they have to retract, how is that manna from Jehovah described? As a mistake? That they overstepped their bounds?
NO; here is how it looks:
In the past **some comments have appeared in this magazine** in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality.
(Some comments??? Not divine guidance??)
Or this:
The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including **persons having to do with the publication of the information** that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.
So when the information just has to be dealt with due it being completely wrong (1975) or head-smackingly stupid (rules about intimate behavior), it is just "comments" or "publication of the information."
It no longer is light from Jehovah, or divine guidance.
This is comical:
14 Husband and wife need to be open with each other and realize that a **lack of tenderness in intimate relations can lead to problems**. (Read Philippians 2:3, 4; compare Matthew 7:12.) This has proved true in some religiously divided families. Even if differences exist, the Christian can usually improve matters by good conduct, kindness, and cooperation. (Read 1 Peter 3: 1, 2. ) Love for Jehovah and for one's mate, combined with a yielding spirit, will help in this aspect of marriage.
Whatever are they talking about? Lack of sex, rough sex, rape???? Do they mean lack of intimacy? How specifically does love for Jehovah help someone with intimacy issues with your mate?
These writers are in so far over their heads.
P
Speak english, please, WT.
Note that when they are putting forward something they feel strongly about, they emphasize that they are the slave, the FDS, and that if we resist it, we may be resisting Jehovah.
When they realize that they have to retract, how is that manna from Jehovah described? As a mistake? That they overstepped their bounds?
NO; here is how it looks:
In the past **some comments have appeared in this magazine** in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality.
(Some comments??? Not divine guidance??)
Or this:
The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including **persons having to do with the publication of the information** that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.
So when the information just has to be dealt with due it being completely wrong (1975) or head-smackingly stupid (rules about intimate behavior), it is just "comments" or "publication of the information."
It no longer is light from Jehovah, or divine guidance.
This is comical:
14 Husband and wife need to be open with each other and realize that a **lack of tenderness in intimate relations can lead to problems**. (Read Philippians 2:3, 4; compare Matthew 7:12.) This has proved true in some religiously divided families. Even if differences exist, the Christian can usually improve matters by good conduct, kindness, and cooperation. (Read 1 Peter 3: 1, 2. ) Love for Jehovah and for one's mate, combined with a yielding spirit, will help in this aspect of marriage.
Whatever are they talking about? Lack of sex, rough sex, rape???? Do they mean lack of intimacy? How specifically does love for Jehovah help someone with intimacy issues with your mate?
These writers are in so far over their heads.
P
Speak english, please, WT.