@Scully:
Please try to keep on topic.
Ok. Please let me know in my future posts as well whenever it is you notice I've diverted from the topic started by @yknot as to why it is that a discussion of the marital due didn't make the cut, so to speak, in the new textbook. I do appreciate that you're willing to do this for me.
@sd-7:
Um...I'm not sure if my post was misunderstood. I should probably clear it up, then. My concern was that my wife claimed illness, but was never clear on what sort of illness, and she doesn't have any diseases or anything, and we were very sexually active for several months, then she suddenly stopped for awhile. I was confused and trying to figure out, well, is this something new, or was it always there? I would be very wrong to condemn her or blame her if she was legitimately sick or if it legitimately made her uncomfortable. I would never want her to feel guilty about that, because if it's a health reason why she can't do it, I totally understand and would never, ever justify adultery on that basis or any basis.
I believe most of the people here may have understood your post just fine. But what I did understand is what I stated I didn't comprehend. You wrote:
My wife saw [that QfR article] on my computer screen and went pretty ballistic, thought I was suggesting that I should have the green light for adultery because she'd been holding out for awhile, apparently due to a months-long illness that she never sought treatment for.
Where exactly in this particular QfR article [w73 6/1, p. 352] does it suggest that adultery is permissible under any circumstance? Not only did you take such an idea away from your having read this article, but you specifically indicated that this is also what your wife concluded from seeing this article on your computer screen, so my question is what you did read in this QfR article that led to you and your wife forming this conclusion? I don't see place for such reasoning in this article.
In @Scully's post, the following was quoted from this article:
"The innocent mate may even have contributed toward the unfaithfulness of his or her marriage partner. If, for example, the wife has deliberately deprived her husband of the marital due, she bears a certain responsibility for what has happened. She is not altogether without blame from God’s standpoint," and a reference to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 was also cited.
If this is the particular quote that you and your wife read that caused both of "you guys" to conclude that this somehow gives short shrift to God's command forbidding adultery, I don't see where this quote provides a single excuse to anyone. Please respond.
I believe adultery to be wrong. Withholding does not give someone the right to cheat, in my opinion, but I don't judge anyone who makes that choice, because we're none of us free from sin.
Well, that's where you and I differ, let's forget about adultery, since, not in the Middle East, but here in the Western world, only some religious folks believe fornication and adultery to be serious sins (Catholics often seek absolution from their priests during the week before hooking up that weekend!), and let me ask you what your opinion is of armed robbery.
Now because "none of us [are] free from sin" that even though you believe stealing to be wrong, and murder to be wrong -- note I'm assuming in my long question here that you are against theft and murder -- would you judge those people that would walk into a liquor store or a bank and steal money at gunpoint, maybe killing one or two scared people in the process, who should make this choice? I'm not telling you how to answer my question, but a "yes" or "no" would be fine.
I saved that '73 WT quote, and we agreed on this, because it points out how serious these matters can be.
Again, you and your wife agreed on what now? That this QfR article gives short shrift to God's command forbidding adultery, or what?
I think maybe therapy might be a good way for couples to talk about issues like this if they can't be open with each other. But I don't think the elders are equipped to help with that, nor do I think they should be entitled to information about someone's medical information.
I think therapy might be a way that might help some couples with many of the issues that arise during their marriage, since some couples have had to get past sexual abuse that they thought was no big deal and forgotten until they got married, only to learn that the reason why their wives do not enjoy sex is due to vaginal cuts (tears) on or near the perineum, and some have opined (I cannot prove this though) that the discovery of lichens sclerosis in damaged or scarred skin on or near the vagina can be traced back to either toying with sex during one's youth or untreated vaginal tearing as the result of rape or incest during one's childhood.
While uncircumcised males affected by lichens sclerosis are often cured by the removal of the foreskin, surgery doesn't cure these patches in women, and often the result is that husbands wrongly conclude that their wives are deliberately refusing to have sex with them. Ruptures and cuts in the flesh due to anal fissures (sphincter tears) after a hard stool may also make intercourse undesirable for woman.
However, I do agree with you that the reasons for a wife's lack of sexual desire are not going to be something that a congregation elder will be equipped to handle as most are neither gynecologists (OB/GYNs) nor are they therapists, but what they should be doing is referring such matters out to trained medical professionals. An elder's wife could be brought in to help since if she doesn't have personal knowledge, she might have had some experience helping other women with similar issues. Hopefully, with this, I've strayed too far off topic again.
If they won't inform people in the congregation about child molesters, then it serves no purpose for them to know any other sensitive information, since it's never about protecting the flock.
What do you mean? From where are you getting this? It's hardly the case that brothers that are known to have been guilty of child molestation are even found attending meetings in the local congregation, but whenever any of them are known to be in attendance, the elders watch them the entire time, and I mean those brothers "in good standing" are constantly being monitored by the elders. It is about protecting the flock since these brothers are marked for life, that is, until the new system arrives.
@miseryloveselders:
No, you're mistaken. One doesn't necessarily grieve the holy spirit when he or she commits a sin. Recall that at 1 John 2:1, 2, the apostle John wrote:
I think you missed you missed the word "practice" in my post. Had you noticed that, you would see that I'm right, and that you actually posted points that agree with my post. It would have saved you from doing all that typing anyways.
I don't believe I missed the word "practice" in any of your posts, because this word wasn't used in any of them. Don't think there to be any need on your part to save me from what things I might type, ok? I'd rather you do what things the Bible indicates you need to do to save your life.
@djeggnog wrote:
Do you know why you have such disdain for the "brotha"?You sound to me like a "sistah" rolling over the "brotha" because of envy. I say because I cannot remember whites speaking this way, so, to use the vernacular, why are you hatin' on the brotha like this? Why do you zero in like this on the "brotha" and not on one of the whites? What exactly did the brotha do to you? Maybe I'm asking the wrong question here: Do you hate these "old men" that comprise the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses with a special hatred for this "fake" brotha because you think he's perpetuatin' and not a real brotha, because a real brotha would never be a member of the Governing Body?
@miseryloveselders wrote:
Now this interesting. A real gem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had a feeling you have a tan.
I have "a tan"? The difference between your worldview and mine is that you see things in black, brown and white, but, as I see it, first, there is no black-brown divide, only Latino envy, and second, brown is the new white so better get used to it, ese. Actually, I didn't know you knew his name because, before, you called Herd a "token brotha" and, homegirl, I can feel you, but is this thread about your racial views? Is it?
Recently, I read something that is pertinent here: "Hay Gonzalez blanco, Hay Gonzalez negro, cada quien tiene, tiene del otro su poquitico." This means that "there are white Gonzalezes, there are black Gonzalezes, and everyone has a bit of the other. Now that's real.
My instincts were going off. What really has my interest [piqued] though is that you seem to have caught offense over me dissing Brotha Herd. You know him personally or something? Because for someone concerned about me "sounding like a sistah rolling over the brotha because of envy", you sure come off like one of those fellas that grab their wife or girlfriend real close when guys like me step in the room.
No, sistah girl. It's not like that. I was flossing over your concern with tokenism, which I think is code for racism. I think you're confusing your bigotry regarding folks as black as you with instincts, and these aren't the same thing, believe me. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying you have to like the man, 'cause you don't have to, but you did a complete 180° from our talking about "the very foundation of Christianity is acknowledging that we're sinners whether it be in thought, word, or action" to anti-black rhetoric. You came out nowhere with this, and I really couldn't tell if you were thinking the man was a cabron or what since we're talking about adultery in this thread.
Since your one of my own, you're probably familiar with the phrase, "handcuffing em." I'm sure glad you're concerned enough about Brotha Herd to protect his reputation from brothas like me on the internet. What would he do without guys like you? The same thing he was doing before you decided to handcuff him, Captain Save-Em. Now Captain Save-Em, if you can't see the irony of that picture, well there's not much you and I can discuss....brotha. To be fair, maybe I'm being overly harsh on Brotha Herd. Maybe he's more of Jackie Robinson, as opposed to a JC Watts.
Wow! Jackie Robinson and JC Watts are also black. You don't mind putting it out there what you are, and I think I like you for that. I think "closet" racists are dangerous people, you know what I mean? I think they should not be in there, but should come out and proud of who and what they are.
@djeggnog wrote:
Who are you? You are a spiritual sister of mine that has lost her way, someone that I'm trying to encourage that you might get back on the Way. (John 14:6) My words here could be the ones that you will recall my saying to you by the time that the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ begins, and my hope is that you will have gotten past your anger against Jehovah and that you will also have gotten past what seems to me to be self-hatred and will have come back to Jehovah when that revelation begins. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
@miseryloveselders wrote:
Captain, I didn't know you were also a Spiritual Psychiatrist. Thank you for diagnosing my problem. However, I think I'll seek a second opinion.
I am a spiritual physician, since you asked (sort of).
Since you felt so obligated to psychoanalyze me, allow me to scratch your back! You state you are an old man that happens to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that you've been proclaiming and teaching others about the Kingdom. I tip my hat to ya fella. However I'm not so sure of what you claim sir. The reason is, if you truly are a no-blood card carrying Jehovah's Witness, who truly believes this is God's organization, and also truly believes the GB are God's chosen representatives on this mudball of a planet, then let me ask you a question. Why are you here?
Excuse me while I lose my Puerto Rican accent here. (BTW, "sistah," I'm not Puerto Rican either.) I am interested in helping folks that have severed their relationship with God's organization to return to Jehovah. I know the reasons for their leaving are many, but if anyone here wants to talk to me about their doing that, I can help them. Not you, mind you, but the lurkers. Apparently you think you know more about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe than I do, but maybe after reading the article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones" [w74 8/1 paragraphs 24-26, pp. 472, 473], you'll discover that you're ignorant about a few things that we believe. I would invite you to read the article. BTW, you're off-topic.
You've painstakingly taken the time to show myself and others on this forum the error of our ways. By you doing that, you brazenly go against the directives of God's chosen representatives. (Heb 13:17) Or do you get a pass from this directive for some reason unbeknownst to us?
I need no such "pass." It is you that have read articles in WTS publications and thought you understood what they were saying, just as I pointed out to you about the QfR article that you totally misunderstood. What you need is to have a Bible study with me. Probably won't happen, but while you think you know more about what things the Bible teaches, you're wrong.
So again I have to ask you Mr.Envoy of the Kingdom of God, why are you brazenly going against the directives of God's [anointed] representatives that you hold in such high esteem? You by being here, demonstrate a lack of faith by being here and posting. Your unsteady in your ways. (James 1:8) You can only be here for a few reasons. One of which is you have a beef with this organization. Another possibility is you doubt the validity of this organization's claims, and you're here testing what you've believed all these years by debating with us. There's other possibilities. Make no mistake though, by you being here and posting, you don't do a service for the WT. If anything, you actually further the apostate cause. Me personally I'm glad you're here allowing two sides of the coin to be exposed, but don't kid yourself by believing you're nobel in the WT eyes.
First, you're repeating yourself here. (Scroll up.) Second, you're wrong on both counts. I have an agenda, but I've made it no secret. (Ask @Lady Lee.)
This might get you a clap at the convention or assembly where the audience is looking for anything to liven that borefest up. Here on this forum, I smell your nonsense. Don't think because you're on Medicare and have went out in field service for a few years that I'm to believe your a cute little old man. No, your a man lacking faith in the organization you outwardly hold in high esteem. Secretly you post here, trying desperately to prove to yourself its "the truth." Or your one of the "unwanteds" at the Kingdom Hall, and this is how you tell yourself they still value you. Or maybe being one of the unwanteds, this is the closest you get to associating with JWs, damned if they're undercover apostate, or in bad standing. Stop fooling yourself Eggnogg. By the way, stop posting a bunch of paragraphs. It takes away from the good points you've made.
You're not just angry and bitter about choices that you yourself made in the past, but you have no idea how dumb you come off here saying these things when even you were once one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Should I now be your disciple? I mean, how weak-minded would that be?
I will post whatever it is I want to post, and if it turns out that my "posting a bunch of paragraphs" becomes necessary to make my point, I will. You can always skips my posts and not read them. Mine would be the ones with "djeggnog" superimposed over the avator. But I don't expect you to be able to control yourself from reading my posts (since it seems I really have a lot to say).
I apologize for playing a part in hijacking this thread.
Too late.
@sd-7:
Oh. So djeggnog is some sort of...JW? Uh...yeah. This is not a place JWs should be visiting. So...I'm just going to let my words stand as they were and not bother saying anything further in response. Any JW who comes here to debate people is in clear violation of the instructions the "slave" class has given about this. So if you're here to debate with 'apostates', you should not be. But it's all...hey, I could probably write verbatim everything you could (or should) possibly say myself, so...why would I bother?
Whether you post any further responses to my posts is your choice to make. I'm not going to cry about it. You're mistaken to think that you know what I can or cannot do. These "instructions" to which you refer are written thusly because it is much easier to advise against engaging in some activity that could affect your spirituality than it is to say nothing. But only someone more mature that you apparently are would be able to comprehend what it is I'm saying here to you now. I thought things were laid out quite well in the article to which I referred @miseryloveselders (above),entitled "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones" [w74 8/1 paragraphs 24-26, pp. 472, 473]. I invite you to read this article, too. BTW, you're off-topic, too.
And by the way, Hebrews 6:1, 2 talks about repentance from dead works. In order to display repentance, you have to first recognize that you're a sinner, which I believe was the point someone was making. So...recognizing you're a sinner is the foundation of Christianity, it's an integral part of the path to becoming a Christian. I think that's something every Christian can agree on. Why would there be a debate about that? You can't repent if you don't see yourself as a sinner. And then Hebrews 6:1, 2 has a lot less meaning, because you're not taking the basic steps to Christian faith.
I had only in my last post to you pointed out how retarded your understanding of what you had earlier told me you understood to be "the foundation of Christianity," and I cited Hebrews 6:1, 2, which, true, does speak of "repentance from dead works," one of the six (6) things that the apostle Paul lists in this passage, but Paul was there talking about repentance from the dead works of the Law of Moses, for there were those that were thinking that they could earn God's forgiveness by their practicing the works that had been required of the Jews under the Law and thus prove themselves righteous before God, but Paul stated that "a man is declared righteous, not due to works of law, but only through faith toward Christ Jesus," and "a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law." (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28)
I just had to throw that out there, but that's all I can say. I'm done.
Well, I'm glad you gave me a chance to tell you a second time what I told you first time you made this zany statement about the foundation of Christianity being our "acknowledging that we're sinners whether it be in thought, word, or action," which is just wrong.
@djeggnog
