Evidence of WT bad intent - How they handled changing the meaning of "porneia"

by AlainAlam 38 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  3rdgen

  Another point to consider is this: Prior to the WT article in 1974, the WTBT$ stated that homosexual acts committed by someone married were a perversion but were NOT scriptural grounds for divorce. The Aid book distributed in 1972 said so in print.

  I knew a sister who divorced her husband for this reason. She and all the others like her whose mates had cheated on them with the same sex or with animals were not allowed to remarry and remain in good standing. Thankfully, this stupidity caused her to leave Watchtower before they reversed themselves.
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @AlainAlam

  So what was your point? I thought you were looking for proof of maliciousness. Not apologizing properly and not admitting a mistake is no proof of malicious intent, it's more to do with a lack of humility. I must admit, the WT is not known for apologizing for their mistakes. Fruits of repentance though are not apologies. They are more than words, they are "fruits" which means they are actual actions. The mistake was rectified and I suppose that was deemed sufficient in the eyes of the WT. Of course in the end everyone will have to answer for their mistakes to God.

  Second, if someone divorces their mate on account of lewd conduct, you KNOW they were not prepared to work things out, either the offended mate or the one causing the offence. Also, the one causing the offence may have not been a JW, so may have had different standards. There are several scenarios. but it was obviously something not intended to be taken lightly, just as an excuse for divorce at slight sign of trouble or sexual preferences. It had to be very disturbing to one mate, with no sign of a resolution, or compromise as it was with the example of the sister I mentioned.
• 

  AlainAlam

  wozza, you said "they accept and glorify the writings of Solomon in the bible , yet he died an apostate to the kingdom of god in his time!"

  That would apply to all Christians, but in all cases, his writings were before his apostasy - or they should have been if we believe the Bible is inspired by God.
• 

  AlainAlam

  3rdgen "the WTBT$ stated that homosexual acts committed by someone married were a perversion but were NOT scriptural grounds for divorce. The Aid book distributed in 1972 said so in print." I didn't know. No apologies there either.
• 

  caves

  I'm still trying to figure out what your fucking major malfunction is.
• 

  AlainAlam

  Nitty-Gritty of course "fruits" involve more than an apology. The fact that they correct/improve their beliefs/procedures is definitely to their credit. But it doesn't mean there's no need for an apology. If I stomp your foot, it's not sufficient for me to just stomp your foot - I should also admit my mistake and apologize.

  Also, let's not get confused between two things. Supposing that the Bible is God's world and that the second definition of porneia is the correct one, the WT's first definition is wrong at two separate levels:

  1) It is a wrong teaching in itself, so they're teaching something unrighteous. Readers were taught something wrong, but that's it. I can accept it that no apology is required. Readers were taught something wrong, now things have been rectified and we move on to something else.

  2) It caused people to take action and divorce unscripturally, which put them in line for adultery when they remarried. Updating the definition doesn't tackle this issue. So, where are their fruits of repentance?

  There's no way I can view this as any other thing than unrepentance/bad intent.
• 

  caves

  There's no way I can view this as any other thing than unrepentance/bad intent.

  Much like your posts. jk

  You ask things, then turn around and try to school people with the information they give you.

  I think I shall call you [AA Double Bind].

  
  

  
  
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @AlainAlam

  I somehow cannot see that unrepentance is same as bad intent. The intent was obviously not bad, you already agreed with that earlier. As regards the lack of apology/unrepentance well that really is something the readers do not need to worry about, as their (the readers) action (divorcing) was done in good faith, relying on information from WT. It is the WT that will be held accountable by God, not the reader who acted in good faith.
• 

  wozza

  Alain - true it is for all christians but I was dealing with the WTS

  As regards to Solomons writings and his worship ,he did this before his apostacy BUT the same could be said of Ray Franz of more recent times ,a governing body member who wrote alot of material for the WTS including material in the Aid book .

  But look how they treated him and would not now use his words as Gospel would they?
  
• 

  smiddy3

  wozza

  Is that why they never identify the author of any of their publications by name ? Their books or publications would now be rejected because so and so is no longer a JW or in fact has become an apostate ?