LOL @ Rockeman's comment.
Why do demons supposedly watch only illicit sex? Wouldn't they 'get off' on watching married people too?
Sex in the New Book "Learn from the Great Teacher"
by AlanF 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
sandy
-
sandy
Where do people learn a lot about violence and improper sex and spirits and ghosts? -- Isn't it from watching certain television shows and movies, playing computer and video games, going on the Internet, and reading comic books? Does doing these things bring us closer to God or closer to the Devil and his demons? What do you think? --
Revision:
Where do people learn a lot about violence and improper sex and spirits and ghosts? -- Isn't it from watching certain television shows and movies, playing computer and video games, going on the Internet, JWs molesting their children, and reading comic books Does doing these things bring us closer to God or closer to the Devil and his demons? What do you think? --
-
starScream
Yehaw! See them floodgate burst wide open baby.
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.
If that is how you want to look at it. But then you are addmitting that under the mosaic law no such commandment existed.
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
If by fornication you mean premarital sex then chapter and verse in the OT will suffice. I have looked at the so-called prooftexts other fundamentalists have given me. It never says it in the OT. There is always something else attached to it several times their is no attonement prescribed because it only dealt with property issues.
Recently I have read the writings of a Rabbi on the matter and he came to the same conclusions that I did.
As you have pointed out, the law against hating one's enemy was added, too.
That is not what I pointed out. I pointed out that the Golden rule was already in existence. The Law of hating one's enemy was simply done away with. It was not a new Law. I did bring up polygamy which is a new command, I have not done any research on that one but if it was indeed added it was specifically noted. However if it was specifically condemned I would need to see it chapter and verse myself.
Paul said to not marry a women if she is a virgin.
I just read an instance where Paul said to marry a virgin so I will leave out the other one where he said not to for now. BTW I wasn't trying to say that we don't have to listen to the commands from the Apostles with that scripture I mentioned. My point was that he said not to do something but no one considers that prohibition a sin.
The word they used to describe prohibited sexual acts clearly include premarital sex within their meaning.
The OT is clear. You know how clear they made things in the OT. They didn't let you guess as to their meaning. The OT says "DONT GO TO YOUR MOTHER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER."
What do you think is going to come up more often, premarital sex or having sex with your mother? So then why is the "sin" that is a billion times as common not mentioned? I have been looking for it. I have searched the OT. I have read fundamentalist proof-texts. I'm sorry I can't condemn my friend for having sex with his girl-friend if the bible doesn't. But hear we go, as soon as someone questions this mystery Law they are shouted down.
Yet you freely admit, "fornication" means a lot more than simply pre-marital sex. It means a lot of things. So to say it clearly includes all pre-marital sex is only your opinion. The word "fornication" is properly translated as sexual immorality.
You may well be honest in your conclusions, but your logic is flawed,
I appreciate that you give me the benefit of the doubt. My logic is not flawed though. If something is added as Law in the NT it is clearly noted. You claim that the ban on "sexual immorality" makes this new addition clear. Well if it is indeed something new as you are leaning towards accepting by saying that new Laws are added then it is you who has the weaker argument.
If in fact the OT never prohibits premarital sex universally then I am right and this "Law" is pretty vague for how frequently it is violated compared to having sex with your mother, or even another man's wife.
-
patio34
Please excuse this if it has been addressed before. AlanF put in that the book says:
the demons like it when a boy and a girl play with each others' penis or vulva
It seems to me that this explicit description (namely the word play) is strange. Much more appropriate would be the words touch or handle. I don't know why, but their wording seems to invite such behavior---play being something children do naturally.
Pat
-
wednesday
Since i've been around for a while, i remember the 'i love lucy" show, whrer a married couple weren't even allowed to sleep in the same bed. and when Lucy got PG, she wore all those stupid frilly virginal maternity tops. bet she wasn't wearing that when she got PG.
-
IslandWoman
Patio,
It seems to me that this explicit description (namely the word play) is strange. Much more appropriate would be the words touch or handle. I don't know why, but their wording seems to invite such behavior---play being something children do naturally.
I agree! In fact, wouldn't a pedophile use the word "play" with young children? This whole thing is very suspicious. It invites and prohibits at the same time. This is not teaching right and wrong but rather implanting a seed it seems.
IW
-
starScream
In fact, wouldn't a pedophile use the word "play" with young children?
I heard experts commenting on the Westerfield trial that pedophiles use xxx depictions of popular cartoons to ease children into their molestations. I notice the article said when "boys and girls play..." not men and boys or men and girls? hmm..... ya never know.
-
sf
For example, the demons like it when a boy and a girl play with each others' penis or vulva. We don't want to make the demons happy, do we?
ROFLOL!! How absolutely smurfy!!
'We don't want to make the demons happy, do we'?
BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
sKally
-
Ghost of Esmeralda
oh my G...oh wait, that's the fictitious character I don't think I believe in anymore. Oh my EASTER BUNNY! (nod to dedalus) lol
Seriously, though, I have GOT to get my hands on a copy of that book. If my ex tries to 'study' with my seven year old out of that I will NOT be happy. I have to have counter measures ready.
And they expect kids to grow up to have normal marriages after hearing all their lives that it makes the demons happy? Why don't they just call sex the 'original sin' and be done with it!!!!
BAH!!!
totally disgusted...
essie
-
NeonMadman
Yehaw! See them floodgate burst wide open baby.
What floodgates? One person responds to you on this topic and the floodgates are open?
you are addmitting that under the mosaic law no such commandment existed.
Let's stipulate that for purposes of this discussion. I can't find a text in the OT that specifically comdemns premarital sex, at least not on the level that adultery is condemned. The fact that property sanctions were attached to fornication, however, at least shows that God did not approve of it.
Recently I have read the writings of a Rabbi on the matter and he came to the same conclusions that I did.
Argument to authority. The fact that one other person, even a learned Rabbi, agrees with you proves nothing.
That is not what I pointed out. I pointed out that the Golden rule was already in existence. The Law of hating one's enemy was simply done away with. It was not a new Law.
That's my whole point. There was no law that said, "You must hate your enemy." It was what the people had been taught by their religious leaders. There was also no law that specifically said to love your enemy, although there were several texts where kindness to one's enemies was advicated. (Exodus 23:5; Prov. 24:17,18; 25:21, 22) So the idea was there, and Jesus enlarged upon it. Similarly with divorce; He extended the existing principle into binding commands - whereas divorce for any reason had previously been allowed, now the only grounds were to be porneia. The principle of the sanctity of marriage was there all along, but Jesus expanded it into something greater than it had been.
I just read an instance where Paul said to marry a virgin so I will leave out the other one where he said not to for now.
I'd still like to see chapter and verse where you believe he commanded us not to marry virgins. I suspect that you are looking at a text where he is trying to tell us not to marry at all, if we can avoid it, and using the wording of the text to mean something different. But I'm not sure what verse you are referring to.
What do you think is going to come up more often, premarital sex or having sex with your mother? So then why is the "sin" that is a billion times as common not mentioned?
In the NT, it unquestionably is. The most common definition of "fornication" - especially in English - is 'sex between unmarried persons.' In fact, unlike the Greek porneia, the English word "fornication" is generally restricted to that meaning, excluding all other forms of sexual immorality. When a married man has sex with another man's wife, we don't use the term, "fornication," we have another word for it (adultery). Lilewise, having sex with one's mother is not "fornication," it is incest. But if two unmarried sixteen-year-olds, a boy and a girl, have sex in the back seat of a Chevy, that is exactly what we mean by the term, "fornication."
Now, the Greek porneia includes all of those acts, and several more. If, as you assert, the case of the two sixteen-year-olds is not included in the meaning of porneia, then Bible translators have done us a grave disservice over the years by translating porneia as "fornication." It would be a gross mistranslation. It isn't a question of what the Mosaic Law prohibited, since, as we have seen, Christianity expands upon the Mosaic Law in several areas. Nor is it a question of finding the correct proof texts. It is simply a matter of word definitions. The primary meaning of "fornication" is sex between unmarried persons. The NT admonishes us to flee from fornication. Unless most English Bibles have serious translation issues, that means that sex between unmarried persons is prohibited.
But hear we go, as soon as someone questions this mystery Law they are shouted down.
Who is shouting you down? Certainly not me. I'm just trying to apply reason and scripture to the issue you have raised. Do you have a persecution complex?