well done Richie
WT Comments (Dec 3-9 ORAL SEX) FEATURING RICHIE RICH
by V 62 Replies latest members adult
-
-
restrangled
Great Job RR.....this article was so off the wall, I thought you were making it up at first!
I must say its really fun having all these guest study conductors! As fun as it is, I still could only read about half way through and then just skip to the comments. Seems they should have saved this article for the double secret version for R and F only.
Someone in the writing department is obsessed with oral sex, and the only person I have ever heard say it wasn't real sex was a President of the United States.....
r.
P.S.....Merry Christmas Richie!
-
Open mind
Is Oral Sex an Unscriptural practice?
"Drink water out of your own cistern, and tricklings out of the midst of your own well." Proverbs 5:15
Everyone, even the dubs, acknowledges this is a sexual metaphor.
Now let's ponder The Word a bit more shall we?
Hmmm.
"drink water".....the mouth is involved............it sounds pretty wet.....nuff said.
See it's all Bible Based (tm)!!
Open Mind
-
Leolaia
You had me in stitches with your "penis comments," lol....
Some comments:
1) The Society makes a big deal about words like "trinity" or "purgatory" being in the Bible, yet they have no qualms talking about a first-century "governing body"?
2) The articles says: "The Greek term involves the use of the genital organs in either a natural or a perverted way with lewd intent. It includes all forms of illicit sexual relations outside of Scriptural marriage. So it includes oral sex". Oh no, here we go again. The author of this article thinks he is talking about unmarried couples ("outside of Scriptural marriage"), but the wording implies that oral sex between consenting spouses is also porneia: it says without qualification that oral sex is porneia because the term "involves the use of the genital organs in ... a perverted way with lewd intent". This comes rather close to the 1970s view the Society promoted that treated oral sex between marriage spouses as porneia, regarded as "unnatural or perverted acts" (6/22/1974 Awake!, p. 14), "perversions within the marriage arrangement," "all forms of immoral sexual relations, perversions and lewd practices such as might be carried on in a house of prostitution, including oral and anal copulation", (11/15/1974 Watchtower, p. 704), etc. Yet in 1978, the Society retracted this view and admitted that they were wrong in defining porneia in such a way:
Beyond these basic guidelines the Scriptures do not go and, hence, we cannot do more than counsel in harmony with what the Bible does say. 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. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship.
A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis" (2/15/1978 Watchtower, pp. 30-31).
3) The article says: "After thinking about points such as the ones Lois considered, Ruth prayerfully consults "Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower of May 15, 2002." Wow, this wording puts the Watchtower almost on par with the Bible itself, since the Society frequently uses this expression to refer to the Bible. For example: "More is involved than simply reading the Bible. One must reflect prayerfully on what is stated therein" (5/1/1980 Watchtower, p. 15), "Through an intensive study of the Bible, Jehovah's people have prayerfully sought a correct understanding" (5/15/1987 Watchtower, p. 31), "Like these Bible writers, we too need to meditate appreciatively and prayerfully on God's Word" (2/1/2003 Watchtower, p. 9), etc. The Society does say the same thing with respect to its literature, but for some reason, this wording is rather striking to me.
4)The article also says: "She decides to accompany her husband but not to share in any religious deeds, and she is acting in harmony with her conscience. She tactfully but clearly explains to her husband what her conscience will permit her to do and what she cannot do....But would Ruth's decision be bad? That is not for others to say. They should not judge or criticize her for choosing to attend the event but not perform any religious act." Au contraire, if others in good conscience have decided that a particular custom (such as celebrating birthdays) does not in fact involve any contrary religious act, you can bet that the elders will make it their business to question their consciences. And referencing the story in ch. 3 of Daniel is a double-edged sword. When it came to a REAL conflict of conscience over a REAL idolatrous act, they resisted. But did they resist accepting pagan names that contained the names of "false gods" (Nebo in the case of Abednego, Bel in the case of Belteshazzar, etc.)? And did they also resist higher education (involving education in Neo-Babylonian mantic arts!) and accepting government jobs? No, they had no problem with these, even though the Society makes an issue over "neutrality" and avoiding paganism in any form today (even when "pagan origins" are hardly obvious at all). Only when it came to a real violation of their conscience did they make a stand.
-
zamora251978
Going to my parents house tonight any suggestions on what I should say. Then maybe it will give my mom a hint that I have access to the articles. he he he oral sex...might have some tonight...he he he.
Lulu
-
AudeSapere
Paragraph 8 says: ... 1 Corinthians 6:9 ...
Does anyone else see the humor in the choice of this particular scripture in this particular context???
-Aude.
-
joelbear69
from circumsicion to oral sex to church weddings? so if I am uncircumsized can I have oral sex at a church wedding?
-
kifoy
So, basically: As long as you don't are a teenager or have an unbelieving husband... you have no worries...
And, is it only me who feel that the oral sex paragraphs are a bit of a... hum... what's the word... sidetrack?
The whole article is about innocent stuff, bla, bla, boring conscience things, and... BANG! NO ORAL SEX! And continuing with some ordinary not big of a deal conscience questions...
Funny...
kifoy -
kifoy
LOL @ Aude
kifoy -
Burger Time
Wow this article is hilarious...and so are Richies comments good job buddy! I love this one
Ruth prayerfully consults "Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower of May 15, 2002.
Don't look to the bible with prayerful consideration! God could never direct using his word, only the watchtower!
edited- Sorry Leola didn't see you already covered this. But yes this comment was especially striking to me also. Think I'm going to leave a comment about it on my brother Myspace.