Sunday Public talk that talked about oral sex

by TooBad TooSad 304 Replies latest members adult

• 

  sammielee24

  JW's are so use to the changing whims of the GB that they subconsciously carbon date their own teachings, waiting for them to be "updated". How could that possibly be truth?

  BINGO!

  The couple that we had a study with this past month, told us themselves that the Society has changed so much it is not the same as last year. This in response to my point about how they treat their own flock in matters of disfellowshipping and how they take scripture out of context to enforce shunning. They were quick to tell me that the Society had changed their attitude...yet those little changes they kept bring out, in no way addressed the core of the belief they had and what was 'understood'. They just kept believing because they were told to....and as Sam asked them...then how can you possibly tell me you have the truth, if you keep changing that truth when you want. There is no such thing as 'new light'..if you truly say you believe in the bible, the light remains the same. There is no scripture and never was for shunning people and in fact that new light came well after the society was started...the new light on transplants became old light and then new again and in the interim people died..ditto blood..people die from no blood then when the light dims and they decide to change their belief...there is no apology or compensation for those that they allowed to die as a direct result of that 'light'. sammieswife.
• 

  passwordprotected

  So, what we're seeing is the Governing Body butting into people's lives, believing they have the right to expect absolute obedience even if it tears up marriages (which God yolked together...) and moving the goal posts as to what's acceptable within the marriage bed.

  Now, for those who love to cite scriptures saying that Jesus has appointed us leaders on earth, are these indecisive, imperfect, uninspired leaders to be obeyed unquestioningly as put forward in their publications? Or should a Christian have the freedom in Christ to apply 1 John 4:1 and not follow such damaging leadership without punishment?
• 

  shamus100

  The Pharisees had so many rules on what you could do and what you couldn't do with regard to the most mundane things.

  the original poster said it was in a recent study talk last sunday he provided no proof and niether did you

  Interesting; neither do you. Do you really think we're stupid enough to believe your story? I know exactly what you are. You're one of those weirdo's on the fringe of the congregation that most people stay away from. Either that or you're counting time here doing you're ridiculous preaching work, and counting time to people who have already rejected the Watchtowers bullshit.

  Either way, you're a complete idiot. And a liar too.
• 

  carla

  The mere fact that they even discuss this topic in front of small children, mixed company, and even grandma's sitting there is unbelievable. When I tell non jw's that they actually have a church type service and this is the topic they are shocked and appalled and wonder what kind of perverts are jw's? How is this biblical? and as Password already brought up if they were allowed to read the Song of Solomon and research the language they would find an entirely different meaning to that book in the Bible!

  I don't get it, my jw can get visibly uncomfortable when a married couple on tv show any affection yet he can sit through this garbage? Weird, at times he can be beyond prudish about movies & tv but the further away from these kinds of meeting and he returns to some common sense and minor shows of affection do not bother him. And this isn't a cult? yeah right.

  Before he became a jw and if someone ever attemtped to even bring up the topic of oral sex in front of our small children he probably would have told the person in no uncertain terms how unappropriate it was or just pummled the person if they wouldn't stop. Emasculation by the wt fixed any sense of honor for him these days I guess.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  This is from the same 1983 article, and it comments on your 78 reference Reinaa

  *** w83 3/15p.31HonorGodlyMarriage!

  This is an amplification and adjustment in understanding of what appears in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, pages 703-704, and of February 15, 1978, pages 30-32. Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.

  I know password has already covered a lot of this, but this defending of it is nonsense. At Gilead, they talked about this with us elders. Sorry, its still in effect. Thats one thing.

  Reinaa, you know very well that in the absence of a "new light" comment, the most recent reference is "current light" or better to say, "current law". The 07 WT article Password and I have provided shows an affirmation of the 83 teaching, which in that very article "adjusts" away from the 78 teaching.

  At this point, one has to weigh what one is willing to accept as biblical, from the GB, and their own conscience. The current JW understanding of oral sex, and the near perverse obsession the GB has with oral and anal sex, must be weighed against what the bible says. Here is another interesting comment in the 2000 WT on oral sex. (and it again references the 83 WT article interestingly)

  *** w0011/1p.8par.6AGodlyViewofMoralCleanness

  ***

  6 What is meant by the word “fornication”? It comes from the Greek word por·nei´a, which is sometimes used to apply to sexual relations between unmarried people. (1 Corinthians 6:9) Elsewhere, such as at Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, the term is broader in meaning and refers additionally to adultery, incest, and bestiality. Other sexual practices between individuals not married to each other, such as oral and anal sex and the sexual manipulation of another person’s genitalia, can also be designated as por·nei´a. All such practices are condemned—either explicitly or by implication—in God’s Word.—Leviticus 20:10, 13, 15, 16; Romans 1:24, 26, 27, 32.*

  * See The Watchtower, March 15, 1983, pages 29-31.

  Who gets to say what the bible "implies"? Not you, but the GB.

  ***
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  If the WTS had any kind of brain they wouldn't discuss these kind of topics with the entire congregation,

  they should call a special meeting with married people and those whom are considering getting married only.

  But who ever said the boys in Brooklyn ever had a brain.

  Power should never be in the hands of the ignorant.
• 

  recovering

  So if you where disfellowshipped for doing something that they now admit was not a disfellowshipping offence do they reinstate you? If not does this not make them blood guilty or at the very least guilty of stumbling one of the little sheep?
• 

  passwordprotected

  So if you where disfellowshipped for doing something that they now admit was not a disfellowshipping offence do they reinstate you? If not does this not make them blood guilty or at the very least guilty of stumbling one of the little sheep?

  Do they care?
• 

  recovering

  Do they care?

  no i am afraid they do not. It seems terrible that they destroy families over things then just say oops and make no attempt to rectify the situation
• 

  shamus100

  Recovering,

  It doesn't matter, you see. Remember the sufferings of Job. Jehover made a bet with Satan, and he took away everything from him!

  This is all fun and games to god. Trust me; he gets off on it!