Well according to Reniaa what would be something that would never happen...maybe it was a bad dream?
Sunday Public talk that talked about oral sex
by TooBad TooSad 304 Replies latest members adult
-
-
reniaa
and all i'm saying is that the current thought is what is between a married couple is between them even if in a more conservative past this was not the case! and If you going to say they still do this, you will have to show me a wt article from at least this century that mentions oral sex and married couples not just unmarried couples.
and please mrsjones can you not rewrite my words I have from the start accepted that in the distant past they were more conservative as the whole world was and did say certain acts were not advisable but the thought on this has changed.
-
wary
Reniaa,
We all know the society takes a stand with oral sex even within the marriage arrangement.
Its view has softened and hardened [ no pun intended] over the years and it is now back to its semi rigid stance that it [ oral sex] is wrong.
If you are JW and you dont know this then you are very naive.
Why the hell do you come to this site and literaly spout utter nonsense in defense of a teaching you know nothing about?
In fact I do not understand how a practising JW can justify even reading this site. You should be ashamed of yourself and go and confess your sins to the elders.
If you dont I am obliged to do it for you in order to save your chance at salvation.
wary
-
mrsjones5
Reniaa, you have a computer and the same resources as I do to do research, if not more (access to a kingdom hall perhaps). I've done my research and I lived inside the org for many years. I will not do any work for you...look it up yourself.
-
reniaa
A statement has been made and continues to be made so the obligation for proof is not on me, but on the ones making the assertions to provide back up proof. Like I said at least from this century that oral sex is forbidden between married couples I am fairly certain you will find wording to the effect that what is between married couples is between them for at least the last 20 years 1969 is 40 years ago and 1983 is 25 years ago.
If someone does find a recent wt supposedly mentioning it I will check it up though since I have had ex-Jws erm rewording wt's on me before or just plain editing and leaving out certain sentences so a Whole article untouched would be appreciated from lets say within the last 10 years.
-
passwordprotected
Reniaa, you're wrong once again (I should add that if the Governing Body got it wrong, as has clearly been shown, and marriages were destroyed as a result, how does God feel about the type of leadership they offer? You've rejected Christ as your leader, you push him out of the picture and only want the Governing Body and Jehovah).
Quote:
*** Awake! 1974 June 22 p.14 The Craving for Excitement ***
Thus some Christian women complain because their husbands want them to become parties in sodomy and oral sex. Needless to say, perverted, unnatural practices are far from expressing love, affection and tenderness for each other. All such sensual behavior is repeatedly condemned in God's Word.—Rom. 1:24-32; Jas. 4:1, 3.
/quote
So the Governing Body says that oral sex between married persons is perverted and condemned in the Bible.
Quote:
*** Awake! 1975 January 8 p.4 A Permissive Society—Where Does It Lead? ***
What do religious leaders say about all of this? Many take a somewhat similar position, particularly as regards standards of sex. Increasing numbers of them have said that they see no serious danger or wrong in homosexuality, premarital or extramarital sex. The view of many religious leaders is much like that of an actress of earlier times who said: "It doesn't matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses." In a time when even among married persons sex perversions (such as oral and anal intercourse) are becoming more and more common, the clergy have little or no word of counsel or caution to offer.
/quote
Again, oral sex between married persons is called a perversion.
Quote;
*** Watchtower 1976 February 15 pp.122-3 You Must Be Holy Because Jehovah Is Holy ***
Unnatural practices in connection with sex in marriage, such as oral and anal copulation, have caused some of God's people to become impure in his eyes. But The Watchtower kept above this morass of filth by alerting married couples to God's thinking on the matter.
/quote
The Governing Body says that oral sex between a married couple is filthy, unnatural and impure in God's eyes. The Governing Body has revealed God's thinking on the matter. See my previous reference to Song of Solomon for God's actual thinking on the matter.
Quote;
*** Watchtower 1978 February 15 pp.30-1 Questions from Readers ***
If a married person believes that the sexual practices of the mate, though not involving someone outside the marriage, are nevertheless of such a gross nature as to constitute a clear surrender to lewdness or a debauching in lewdness, then that must be his or her own decision and responsibility.
Such a one may hold that the circumstances provide Scriptural basis for divorce. If so, he or she must accept full responsibility before God for any divorce action that might be taken. Elders cannot be expected to express approval (Scripturally) of divorce, if they are not sure of the grounds. At the same time they are not authorized to impose their conscience on another when the matter is a questionable one.
/quote
The Governing Body is saying, while they're not officially sanctioning a wife, for example, divorcing her husband because he enjoys performing cunnilingus on her, it certainly wouldn't be the elder's place to intervene. They've moved from the elders approving a divorce of this kind to merely turning a blind eye to it. Doesn't Jehovah hate a divorcing, Reniaa?
Quote from article cited above;
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.
/quote
A brother known to engage in oral copulation with his wife would not be used in the congregation. The Governing Body, while no longer disfellowshipping such people, do enforce congregation sanctions against them.
Quote;
*** Kingdom Ministry School Textbook (1981) p.151 ***
Sexual Conduct… concerning the marriage bed, individuals can, however, be advised that in their intimate relations, as in all other aspects of Christian life, they need to… have a hatred for all perverted practices including homosexuality, bestiality, oral sex and the like (Lev. 18:22,23; Ps. 97:10; Amos 5:15; Rom. 12:9; Eph. 5:3,10-12; Col. 3:5,6) Persons should be urged to act in such a way as to leave them with a clean conscience, and the marriage bed undefiled. (Heb. 13:4)"
/quote
So, blowing on the garden and tasting it's fruits is put on the same level as bestiality. Jehovah's Witnesses have to hate such perverted acts, even within the marriage union.
Quote;
*** Watchtower 1983 March 15 pp.27-31 Honor Godly Marriage! ***
How about sexual activity between married couples within the marriage bond? [this is where the Governing Body should have said "it's none of our damn business."] It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. However, the Bible certainly enters into their lives. Those who would "keep walking by spirit" should not ignore the Scriptural indications of God’s thinking. And they will do well to cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices. Married couples should act in a way that will leave them with a clean conscience, as they give unimpeded attention to developing "the fruitage of the spirit.
What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate’s enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage.
/quote
The Governing Body ties in unlawful sex acts outside the marriage bond, which God does condemn in the Bible, to a husband, for example, simply wanting to....blow on his wife's garden....
Quote from the above source;
In such cases it may be helpful for the couple to discuss the problem frankly, bearing in mind especially that sexual relations should be honorable, wholesome, an expression of tender love.
/quote
Song of Solomon Chapter 4:16 Awake, O north wind, and come in, O south wind. Breathe upon my garden. Let its perfumes trickle .”
“Let my dear one come into his garden and eat its choicest fruits .”
Chapter 5: 1 “I have come into my garden, O my sister, [my] bride. I have plucked my myrrh along with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb along with my honey; I have drunk my wine along with my milk. ”
I'm sorry, but what's not tender about that ?? What business is it of the Governing Body to put themselves into the equation? They already put themselves in the place of Christ, which is bad enough...
Quote;
*** True Peace (1986) pp.142-51 ch.13 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? ***
The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as "disgraceful sexual appetites" and "obscene" practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God's eyes from expressing "disgraceful sexual appetites" or "hurtful desire"?
Quote;
*** St. Petersburg Times August 22, 2002 "Spiritual Shunning"
[As recorded at http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/22/Floridian/Spiritual_shunning.shtml on August 24, 2002]
[Watchtower spokesperson J. R.] Brown said Witnesses believe that sexual activity between men and women should "follow the normal course." of things. "We feel that oral or anal intercourse would go beyond that."
/quote
Who has decided what the normal course of things is? The Governing Body. And they feel that oral sex between consenting adults in a loving marriage goes beyond that.
So, Reniaa, you don't agree that the Governing Body has condemned oral sex within the marriage union. You said the OP was either lying or didn't know what they were talking about. You said it was at least 40 years since the Governing Body last made ruling on such matters.
I hope the above quotes have expanded your mind.
-
mrsjones5
Reniaa, proof has been given over and over. Specific dates of watchtowers and other wt publications have been posted over and over. The information is out there for you to find and you can go about making sure if it's true or not. You've already stated that you doubt anything that an exjw says so what would be the point of giving you any proof here? You wouldn't believe it anyway.
-
passwordprotected
Reniaa, you said -
you will have to show me a wt article from at least this century that mentions oral sex and married couples not just unmarried couples.
The Watch Tower Society doesn't work that way. If they haven't recently updated a certain teaching, thought or ruling, then that teaching, thought or ruling still stands.
Hence, if a Watchtower article from 1974 calls oral sex between married persons a perversion, and if the WTS hasn't commented on this since, then that's still what they want Jehovah's Witnesses to think.
-
reniaa
The facts are it is christendom is the one that started this whole thing by making the forbidden fruit in the bible between adam and eve about sex and not just about a piece of fruit. this was embraced by using the scriptures on fornication etc to back it up. This false teaching is another one that needed to be taken away but the residue about being guilty on sex was still there and needed refining to only the points that the scriptures do make when it refers to what God does and doesn't allow.
We now as a society can see the reasons why fornication, adultery and homosexuality are not allowed biblically from consequences health-wise and society-wise to see it is not about sex at all.
My local school no longer does father's day cards because and I quote "not enough of the children have father's to give cards too and will be upset seeing the ones that do, making them!"
-
reniaa
password it does work that way if the subject is still addressed but now has dropped the oral sex part between married couples please show the complete article from the recent wt discussion that started this whole conversation going does it mention oral sex between married couples? you didn't provide a single article beyond 1983 that mentioned it just some person's talk..