by Halcon 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Regarding the poster from JW headquarters, who claimed that the GB would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
The question is, is there really a Bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage? Because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
redsetter2 did not say that sex will be permitted, but that it will not be the subject of judicial committees. You will always be condemned but you will be considered weak spiritually. As with blood transfusions, the policy before 1960 was not disfellowshipping but those who did so were considered unspiritual. The congregation could remove privileges and take action but would no longer disfellowship. This I understood from redsetter2
The question is, is there really a Bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage? Because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
Great point. I'm not sure there is. We have plenty of verses telling us who's "nakedness" cannot be laid bear, but none of them involve two single people. OTOH, there are verses that put value on virginity. This, however, is not the same as condemning premarital sex.
There is lots of good reading out there on what porneia actually means given language and cultural rules extemporaneous to Paul's writing. These are different from how religious institutions have interpreted things for current language.
Additionally, private consensual intimacy and sex between adults of the opposite sex will be a conscience matter, as long as vaginal sex and pregnancy is not involved and as long as the activities are not broadcast openly to other members of the congregation. If a married person is involved, they must receive permission from their spouse and then respect their mate's decision if they refuse to permit it, otherwise a judicial committee will be formed and repeated attempts will be made to help that one gain "repentance.
There are two things that I believe are implied from the above. First (in the absence of vaginal sex) oral and even anal sex is a conscious matter. A conscious matter? That's huge.
Second, if a married person DOES receive permission from their spouse to have sex with someone else...is this now a conscious matter as well?
Lloyd Evens thinks being brought up JW was what made him such a messed up Pervert now. He thinks he’s been sexually repressed
After governing body update number two, there seems to be a huge change. Now it seems teenagers and perhaps those in their 20s can get away with having sex and not get DFed.
If this is true, and we are yet to see this play out, then no more people like Lloyd saying the JWs made them sexually repressed.
All the change means is that if young ones are having sex then Elders will not need to speak to them if the parents or guardians say they have the matter in hand. But if the youths are still having lots of sex the elders have to go and have a chat to them. This is the direction now I’m not making this up.
if the young ones still keep having sex then they will have a 90 day sanction and the elders will chase them to come back after 90dsys but why would they want to? They can still talk to family and friends and shunning has been softened up.
Which is better the old way of no sex before marriage at all? Or the modern way where hardly anyone is still a virgin on their wedding day?
Re. Nonmarital sex in the Bible…
…everybody’s forgetting the elephant in the room… that in Biblical times, women were property… first, their fathers’, second, their husbands’.
Which is why the penalties imposed on individuals for nonmarital sex more closely resembled those sentenced to those guilty of theft or vandalism.
Not to mention the preoccupation the Biblical people had with bloodlines and heredity, as they were expecting a messiah, and therefore needed to keep track of who begat whom.
If a young guy “vandalized” a young woman, he was required to pay restitution to her father, as she had been both his property, and arguably a resource the family would have needed. So too if an older guy “stole” a married woman, but the penalties were stiffer.
These being said, there’s some historical evidence that leniency was extended more often than not, to foster tribal solidarity and unity. Sometimes it seems as though the consequences were negligible.
Regardless, we don’t view human beings as property, now. It is, fact regarded as highly immoral. Relationships, including marriage, are overwhelmingly perceived as partnerships.
And all partnerships are different, with different conditions depending on the terms agreed to by the parties involved, occasionally open to renegotiation, and definitely not the same across the board…
…which arguably would extend towards sexual matters as much as any other.
i.e. Nobody else’s fucking business.
Which is better the old way of no sex before marriage at all? Or the modern way where hardly anyone is still a virgin on their wedding day?
Maybe this is the very reason the rules are being loosened in regards to this subject. Who marries a virgin these days (man or woman)? I wasn't when I got married 20 years ago and neither was she. It's even less likely now.
If you go solely by the Bible...define marriage. And "approved".
Do concubines count? :) Is a small party and taking a gal to your tent...Marriage?
Abraham claimed he was God's best buddy...and God spoke to him personally. He had multiple sexual partners..ditto for David, and many other "faithful" friends of God.
In the San Francisco area we had some bisexual/gay JWs men in the 60s whose wives WTB&Ts said were not free to divorce and then remarry. Why? Because Watchtower said adultery required vaginal intercourse with a woman...anal and oral intercourse did not constitute adultery!!!!
That "changed" in the early 70s with the "new light" on Pornia which then included oral and anal sex.
Go figure. Holy Spirit was confused again.
There were some huge mass disfellowshipings at Bethel afterward. It became obvious why some of the guys on the service desk liked the previous definition of adultery and sex, it suited their predilection.
For those who find it relevant, to be brief, nowhere does the Bible anywhere come out and say, premarital sex or intimate touching is forbidden. As Vidiot said, the concern revolved around the notion of possession. The law as described in Ex 22 suggests the seducing and laying of a virgin, might make the guy obliged to marry her if her father demanded it, but only required the compensation of a dowry equivalent if the father finds him objectionable. As damaged goods the father was owed compensation either way. Deut 22 which is basically a rewrite of Ex 22 adds that the guy HAS to marry the girl and can never divorce her as long as he lives. It also adds a story about a guy who marries a girl but who then claims her to not have been a virgin, is really a bizarre one. The parents of the girl are obliged to provide evidence (cloth) that she was a virgin, lest she be stoned at the door of her father's house. Again, the key is that while she was in her father's house she was not to have secretly had sex, putting her father's reputation as the owner of the girl at risk. The story is pretty silly. How did the parents have proof of her virginity (understood as a bloody cloth) without the husband's awareness?? Note that the girl could not provide the proof herself, her testimony wasn't relevant. Further, how hard would it be to provide a cloth with blood on it to save your own reputation and daughter's life?
Like much of the primary history, these rules reflect the often-contradictory sexist views of scribes from the 2nd temple period, and likely never was actually an enforceable code. These writings represented a moral aesthetic not a law as implied.
The Bible does condemn "fornication" multiple times.
