Is This New?

by Lost in the fog 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Fisherman

  the act of touching it, in order to decide whether to put it into the mouth, was in itself punishable by death

  Does not say so in God’s Word. Adam was enjoined directly by God from eating the forbidden fruit but God did not tell Adam not to touch it. Also, the Bible does not say that God told Eve not to eat or touch the forbidden fruit. Eve wasn’t even created yet when God commanded Adam not to eat. How Eve was instructed not to eat it is interpretation, the Bible does not actually say but it seems Adam told her. Also, it was after Adam ate the forbidden fruit that the eyes of both of them were “opened” —and not at the time she touched or even ate the fruit. Bible says nothing about Hod punishing Adam or Evengor touching the fruit. The punishment was for eating the fruit not for touching it. Eve did not receive the death penalty either when God passed judgment on Eve. Death penalty was passed on Adam -returning to the dust. Eve was not created from the dust. She was formed from Adam’s rib. However, she also died and returned to the dust.

  Also, JW cannot be DF for violating Bible principles such as marrying an unbeliever but for committing a DF offense and not repenting. —Although such JW would be looked down upon.
  
  
• 

  Earnest

  Fisherman : How Eve was instructed not to eat it is interpretation, the Bible does not actually say but it seems Adam told her.

  Genesis 3:3 has Eve saying to the snake "God has said, 'YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.'" Whether or not that is what God said, that is the principle that the judicial committee relied on. I was quoting verbatim from the letter they wrote to her when she appealed the decision to disfellowship her.

  I was appalled by the reasoning given and the city overseer to whom I addressed my concerns was appalled that they had written at all, but the decision was upheld on appeal. The issue was not dating an unbeliever, but that she was not scripturally free to marry.
  
• 

  stan livedeath

  just imagine--a cult justice system based on a silly fairy tale supposedly written 1000s of years ago... and subsequently included in a lash up known as the bible. Just how stoopid can people get ?
• 

  Fisherman

  God has said

  From the narrative, God said it to Adam but nothing in the narrative shows either God or Adam speaking to her telling her telling her not to eat or touch. But obviously she believed the command applied to her because Eve articulated the law to the Serpent. (Both JW and Jewish commentators write that it was Adam that told his wife and added the part about not touching.) Also, the death penalty was not pronounced upon Eve by God. But although nothing in the narrative articulates the command to Eve, it shows the consequences upon her for her eating from the tree. —Or was it because of Adam eating —because nothing happened to her until Adam ate. The animals and the entire earth did nothing wrong but suffer along too. God asked Eve: “What is it you have done” and Eve replied: “I ate.” so you can conclude that it was wrong for her to eat because God pronounced a penalty upon her even though God did not say to her what she did wrong. To Adam, however, God told him that he ate from the tree commanded by God not to eat from and then pronounced the death sentence upon Adam for listening to his wife and not obeying his command and God cursed the ground because of Adam. According to the narrative It is clear why Adam is pushing up daisies but not Eve.

  If a man’s wife is brazenly going around dating and touching other men or females even though she is not having se€ual relations with them is wrong because she is married, and the congregation can sanction her.
• 

  enoughisenough

  I wonder what would have happened if I would have told of the numerous times I saw and elder's wife pinching the behind of another elder ( all in good fun, of course-though it did seem brazen ) ( then the question becomes, if a person is so brazen to behave so in plain view, what may be going on out of sight? hmmm! ) Something else I saw was the same elder who was getting his behind pinched,pinched a hired painter who was on a ladder and said woo-who! The painter looked rather shocked.
• 

  Fisherman

  elder's wife pinching the behind of another elder

  People do seemingly wrong things but it depends on the intention and motive.
  
  
• 

  Earnest

  Fisherman : If a man’s wife is brazenly going around dating and touching other men or females even though she is not having sexual relations with them is wrong because she is married, and the congregation can sanction her.

  Jesus said that "everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart", but JWs do not consider pornography a basis for judicial action unless it involves an entrenched practice of viewing "abhorrent forms of pornography".

  When "nonabhorrent" pornography is viewed the only available sanction is that such a person would not be considered exemplary or "qualify for special priveleges".

  I cannot see why dating or touching someone you are not entitled to marry should be treated any differently judicially.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  cannot see why dating or touching someone you are not entitled to marry should be treated any differently judicially.

  And you can see it that way if you wish but inside the JW community members are required to abide by JW rules. And that’s that.

  Academically speaking though, scripturally married the person is viewed as married. Obviously if you are married you are not free to go around dating as I explained in my previous post.