Sex in the New Book "Learn from the Great Teacher"

by AlanF 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Sunnygal41

Not perfect yet, I thought the insult to Prisca was mean too, and not necessary, IMHO.
Terri
"C'mon, put em up, are you a man or a mouse.?"
(Taken from scene where Dorothy and Scarecrow et al meet Cowardly Lion)
rocketman

Nilfun that was hilarious....I loved your response to my question!
asleif_dufansdottir

how many of you here have had "problems" with the demons since you got out?

Not I. Of course, that in itself proves I'm demonized, right??? Ri-i-i-i-i-ight.
Aztec

I'm bothered by the way they try to link sex and violence. The two are not mutually exclusive at all. What a great piece of propaganda that is.
Thank you for posting that Alan.
~Aztec
starScream

I'm sure I am about to open up the floodgates here. First off, i condider myself to be a fundamentalist so don't go thinking im a liberal spousing every whim.
Where the hell does it say in the OT that you must be married to the person you are having sex with? I have searched, people. I just can't find that commandment. You wanna know what I did find?
Leviticus 18:7 "do not...have sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her."
okay don't have sex with mommy. It's a sin cut and dry. See how simple that was. Tell them not to do it, call it a sin and you have your proof text.
Lev 18:6 says to not approach any close relative to have sexual relations with them. I am the LORD.
Well once again we have proven something is a sin. Man it is easy to prove the things that are sins, especially when they are simply called sins!
(does this imply that we are to expect that people just approach other people to have sex)
If you must be married to a person to have sex with them couldn't you have made the book a little cleaner by just saying don't have sex with a person you aren't married to and then say don't marry mom, daughter, a man to a man........
I think we could. I find these passages totally unnecessary if you must be married to a person to have sex with them.
But where does it say do not have sex with a man or woman you aren't married to? It doesn't. Makes it kind of hard to prove that its a sin from the Torah (LAW).
I had this idea when I was a JW kid that in the OT it wasn't a sin for people to have sex if they weren't married but that now it is. My mother told me, "oh no if two people were caught in the field and they weren't married they were stoned to death."
HA! I forget where it is but I read that. It says that if a man is caught having sex with another man's virgin fiance' they are put to death. deut 22:23 is a similar occurrence.
You would think this oh so common wickedness of pre-marital sex would be condemned as a sin in the bible if it were such. Well I also read this scripture. Forgive me I can't find it, I am looking for it, but i have found it before and I know exactly what is says.....
'If two unmarried persons are having sex and the man spills his seed into the woman then he must take a ram(?) to the priest to make the atonement.' death by stoning? No sir. What if he pulls out in time? No harm no foul I guess. It never even mentions such an "abomination." Remember what they say about homosexuals? They have departed from "the natural use of the flesh." So man and woman getting down is the NATURAL USE OF THE FLESH? That is what it said folks I did not make that up.
Leviticus 19:20-22 'if a man has sex with the slave girl who was promised to another man, they are not put to death. He must present a ram for a sin offering to the priest and his sin shall be forgiven.' So what if she wasn't promised to another man?!?!?!??! SILENCE.
Most JWs or Married Christian fundamentalists in general will eagerly turn to vague passages in the NT which have incorporated the word "fornication" and say see!!! it is a sin!!! First of all the word that is translated as fornication does not mean pre-marital sex. It is a generalistic word that includes numerous sexual sins. Is everything that Paul "commanded" a real commandment?
If so then it is a sin for any Christian to marry a virgin. Paul said "if a woman is a virgin DO NOT MARRY HER. But if she is not a virgin and you are engaged to her then go ahead and marry." don't have that citation available but I will look for it after I find the OT one about spilling the seed.
No, I don't blame the dubs for saying it is pleasing to the demons when unmarried persons fondle eachother. The bible certainly never encourages such activities and since nearly all of Christendom condemns it the Watchtower being the pious institution that it is could never be expected to challenge such "Law." If Christendom didn't teach it as a sin I would expect the WTS to invent it myself though. Just one more reason we are the only true religion!!!!!
On a personal note. Im not trying to encourage people to have pre-marital sex. Since I have been born again 2 1/2 years ago, although I am at liberty to do so, I have not had sex. I am not married. If I do in the future I know that I am breaking no commandment from God. That is as long as she in not another man's virgin fiance', the virgin daughter living in her father's house, a prostitute, a close relative, a former wife of my father's, another man's wife, or menstruating. I think that about cover's it. Most of that is in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, although the prostitue refference was in Paul's writings.
funkyderek

Leviticus 19:20-22 'if a man has sex with the slave girl who was promised to another man, they are not put to death. He must present a ram for a sin offering to the priest and his sin shall be forgiven.' So what if she wasn't promised to another man?!?!?!??! SILENCE.

Not complete silence. If a man raped a virgin, he was obliged to marry her under the law (after paying her father, of course).
Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
NeonMadman

Is everything that Paul "commanded" a real commandment?

He was an apostle chosen by God, wasn't he? Wouldn't that mean that commandments he gave were really from God? If you are really a "fundamentalist," as you claim, why would you doubt this portion of scripture, unless it's just that you don't want to believe what it says?
Well once again we have proven something is a sin. Man it is easy to prove the things that are sins, especially when they are simply called sins!
Yes, to most "fundamentalists," as you claim to be, a statement in the Bible is equated with literal truth. So, if the Bible says something is a sin, it's a sin. If you have a problem with that, maybe you ought not to call yourself a fundamentalist.
although I am at liberty to do so, I have not had sex. I am not married. If I do in the future I know that I am breaking no commandment from God.
Provided, of course, that you can pick and choose which commandments are really commandments. There are clear commandments against fornication in the Bible. Are you really prepared to dismiss them simply because they aren't found in Leviticus?
No, I don't blame the dubs for saying it is pleasing to the demons when unmarried persons fondle eachother.
And I wouldn't blame them, either, if all they said was that sexual fooling around between unmarried people was wrong. But to associate sexual experimentation so closely with the demons (of whom JW's are taught to be morbidly afraid) in a book aimed at young children is both inappropriate and dangerous.
starScream

hi neonmadman
He was an apostle chosen by God, wasn't he?
yup
Wouldn't that mean that commandments he gave were really from God?
It most certainly could, but he admitted that his admonitions were not always commands from God.
If you are really a "fundamentalist," as you claim, why would you doubt this portion of scripture, unless it's just that you don't want to believe what it says?
AHAH! Im not the one that is being inconsistent though! Paul said to not marry a women if she is a virgin. It is not I that has decided that it was not a command from God. When was the last time you heard a Christian condemn someone for marrying a virgin? I have NEVER heard it. Paul specifically said not to do it. SPECIFICALLY. He couldn't be more clear. It is obviously not a sin to marry a virgin though. It violates no Law from God to do so. Paul freely admits that not everything he says to do is a command from God. But in this instance he just said DO NOT MARRY A WOMAN IF SHE IS A VIRGIN. If you ask the question as to why he said that you will realize where he is coming from and why he says a lot of things. But to conclude that it is a sin to marry a virgin is inconsistent with scripture and doesn't make any sense and any fundamentalist in the world would agree with me on that.
So, if the Bible says something is a sin, it's a sin.
That is precisely my point. That is what I am saying. I thought you read my post. The OT is very specific about sin. It is not vague. They get into all the gory details about what God prohibits.
There are clear commandments against fornication in the Bible.
Absolutely, and "fornication" as translated is a non-specific sin. It is used to cover all the sexual sins beyond adultery and homosexuality. They were already given in the OT. There was no need to rehash the entire list for the NT.
Are you really prepared to dismiss them simply because they aren't found in Leviticus?
I am not dismissing them at all. "Fornication" covers all those sexual sins that were specifically stated in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I am not dismissing anything but dogma. Nowhere in the OT will you simply find premarital sex universally condemned. The Law was given in the OT. I can't even recall one Law that was added in the NT except perhaps the elimination of hating one's enemy. However, the golden rule is clearly stated in the OT and that does address such an item. So it was not a new Law. It just did away with an existing Law to hate an enemy. Even the Laws that people think were added in the NT were actually contained in the OT. I have not done a study on the elimination of Polygamy so I cannot comment on such an idea.
There is no commandment against premarital sex in the bible. There is always something attached to it that is forbidden. Such as another man's fiance, a relative, the ex-wife of a Father....
Provided, of course, that you can pick and choose which commandments are really commandments.
Not at all. I consider my study in the matter to be completely honest. I have searched the proof texts given by other fundamentalists. They are the ones that are picking and choosing. They ignore it when Paul says to not marry a virgin (not that it's a sin to do so), and then add this nonexistent Law against premarital sex. There have been plenty of unbiblical "laws" people have clung to for whatever reason over the centuries.
So, if the Bible says something is a sin, it's a sin. If you have a problem with that, maybe you ought not to call yourself a fundamentalist.
Indeed. So I am a fundamentalist because when something is called a sin I call it a sin. How can I judge and condemn someone as a fundamentalist for something that isn't even a sin? Maybe I should start condemning people for being in the military or drinking alcohol or marrying virgins. I would be wrong to do THAT wouldn't I? It would be a sin for me to condemn someone for something that isn't a sin.
starScream

funkyderek,
Thanks for the contribution. Notice that there are a few differences in the scenario you brought. One is of a slave girl promised to be married.
In the instance you bring up it envolves, rape and virginity. So in terms of the slave girl not promised to be married it is silent. The consequences of that circumstance are not given. The rape of a man's virgin daughter is another scenario entirely. I actually considered using it in my original post but decided it was a little irrelevant to my theme.
But thanks anyhow
NeonMadman

Wouldn't that mean that commandments he gave were really from God?

It most certainly could, but he admitted that his admonitions were not always commands from God.
On one occasion, that I can think of, Paul said of a specific remark, "This is me speaking, not the Lord." I do not believe that he intended by that to give us carte blanche to pick and choose which of his statements or commands were actually from God. We are assured elsewhere that all scripture is inspired of God, so, if we can conclude that Paul was really giving his own uninspired opinion on that occasion (and I'm not entirely sure that that was the case), we must consider it as the single exception properly designated as such by the writer himself.
Paul said to not marry a women if she is a virgin.
I think I'll need chapter and verse on that one, please. Oh, and before you post it, a word of advice. Read it over a few times and make sure it really says (in context) what you are using it to say. I'll understand if you come back and say you misunderstood the verse.
That is precisely my point. That is what I am saying. I thought you read my post. The OT is very specific about sin. It is not vague. They get into all the gory details about what God prohibits.
The NT is also specific about sin. Fornication ("porneia") is a sin. That includes heterosexual extramarital sex, along with a whole bunch of other immoral practices.
"Fornication" covers all those sexual sins that were specifically stated in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Says who? I'd suggest you get a good lexicon or Bible dictionary (I'd suggest Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, but there are plenty of others), and study the English word "fornication" and the Greek porneia. You will quickly see what those terms encompass. There is no scriptural warrant for confining the meaning of those terms to acts that are specifically prohibited in the Pentateuch.
The Law was given in the OT. I can't even recall one Law that was added in the NT except perhaps the elimination of hating one's enemy. However, the golden rule is clearly stated in the OT and that does address such an item. So it was not a new Law. It just did away with an existing Law to hate an enemy. Even the Laws that people think were added in the NT were actually contained in the OT. I have not done a study on the elimination of Polygamy so I cannot comment on such an idea.
Polygamy would be a good example. It was allowed under the Mosaic Law, but condemned for Christians. Fornication was also condemned in the NT. Under the Law, it was also condemned, but not at the same level as adultery, incest or bestiality. As you have pointed out, the law against hating one's enemy was added, too. So it is clear that Christians are to follow the commands in the NT primarily, utilizing the OT Law as principles, not as binding law. The NT tells us repeatedly not to engage in porneia. That word had a specific range of meaning to the Greek reader, which did not necessarily correspond exactly with the specific prohibitions of the OT. It is that range of meaning that is operative in the command.
Your entire argument seems to be built on this concept, that "fornication" in the Christian sense of the term can only refer to acts that were specifically prohibited under the Mosaic Law. That, I think, is an assertion that needs to be proven before it can be accepted. But the Mosaic Law is not binding upon Christians; the commands of the Christian apostles are. The word they used to describe prohibited sexual acts clearly include premarital sex within their meaning. You may well be honest in your conclusions, but your logic is flawed, in that your premises are highly questionable as to their veracity.

Sex in the New Book "Learn from the Great Teacher"

Share this