by frankiespeakin 45 Replies latest watchtower bible
Your comment on Thomas Jefferson would be a strawman.
As for Russell, he was the founder of a Printing Corporation, and propounded some beliefs. How does that make him "the leader of a mind-control cult"?
I suspect you are mistaking him for Rutherford, who had his own bunch of idiosyncrasies.
As is evidenced on another thread, right now, there's a chasm between the JW's (who Rutherford founded in the 30's) and the Bible Students.
: Do you feel it unreasonable to speculate on Thomas Jefferson and his affairs and that he had slaves who were his own children?
Yes. Speculation never proved anything.
Farkel
I just had two thoughts on this subject..
After nearly a century, there is absolutely no way anything can be proved. All the people are gone, and the written record provides only vague clues, that are subject to misinterpretation.One could say that about the bible too. Doesn't stop anyone from speculating around it.
Sherry
Come on! Could your perspective be based upon lacking "natural affection?" This man was held in reverence by the "brethren", which is quite different than a brothel or bathhouse tryst. Maybe some of his philosophy was way out, but gay? Come on! Those shamanistic drummers have been hitting your head too hard, maybe go back to the 'Dave Clark 5'.
I agree with this comment.
I read your entire post, paid special attention to the red hightlighted lines . . . then put on some sha-na-namanistic drums like you've had playing for hours, then went back and read it again.
My gaydar never once touched off over anything that was written in that account.
Try again, but with feeling this time.
Corvin
Sherry:
The pieces of this speculation, like the bible, are best read in context of the times written. So often, as JW's we read the bible in the context of our own times, and what a mistake that was.
If you heard of a woman that wasn't having sex with her husband, would you instantly assume she was a lesbian? These things do work the other way around, occasionally
For the last couple of months before separation, living under the same roof as my wife, we didn't engage in sex. Does that mean that people are in a position to make assumptions about my sexuality?
As another point, frankly it's only anyone's business if I make it so. Since Russell never came "out", what business is it of ours? Further, what's the big deal, whether he was or not? Would it make him a better or worse person for our knowing it with surety? Would it make us look up or down on him, more than our already formed opinions?
The whole concept of this thread, from every angle, just makes me shake my head...
Wouldn't it be great if Maria had a diary and told the story of her marriage to Charles Taze. Who knows it make be locked up in the secret vaults of the WTS brought from her family after her death.
Oh just my imagination running away with it self. I smell a story that we will never know though but I bet it is a good one.
Balsam
and peace to you all!
Dearest LT, may you have peace and you would have to review the record of their divorce/separation and events leading up to that. I have not researched the topic in quite some time, but the information is out there. The accusation is not speculation; it is on the record.
Dearest Sherry (and others who are uncertain) - Peace to you! Marriage was NOT for the purpose of procreation: procreation was... ummmm... the "icing" on the cake. We have several records to help us understand this:
1. The purpose of the creation of Eve as recorded at Genesis 2:18: as a complement of Adam so that he would have to continue by himself.
2. The marriage of Abram and Sarah, Zechariah and Elizabeth, Jacob and Rachel. These and many other women were "barren," and while their husbands may have procreated with other women, that did not stop their love for these women or their desire for them.
Marriage, dear ones... is the arrangement of God for the "completement" of the human entity: male and female. By reason of their DIFFERENCES, when the two come together, they become ONE complete entity in the eyes of God.
Please note that I do not state this to discredit people who have same sex desires/ relationships: my Lord has not granted me to speak on that issue one way or the other, and certainly not to judge, for sin... is sin. He hast, however, permitted me to understand sin. And... in one way or another... ALL have sinned... and sin... and fall short of the glory of God. Whether it be lying, drunkeness, adultery, shutting the door of one's tender compassion on another, foregoing justice and mercy... what have you. And sin... of the flesh... is not blasphemy... and therefore can be forgiven (that's why he gave his life). I am a servant, not a judge... and my Lord, although granted to judge... judges no one... but forgives all their sins... if they wish it. It is religion and/or the self-righteous... those who exist in sin while lying to themselves that they are "without sin"... who judge... and condemn. By means of doing so, they will be judged... and perhaps condemned. For by means of their judging and condemnation, they judge... and condemn... theirselves.
But I DO have the "freedom" to speak with regard to the true purpose of marriage, and it is the self-righteous and "super" pious who condemn marriage (due to its sexual component), and the unkowing of God who believe that He requires celibacy within a marriage. True, celibacy within a marriage is not a crime; however, to use God as the excuse for such is deceitful: God created the relationship... indeed, He sanctified it.
My Lord lived a celibate life for one reason: love. He could not give himself to a woman to live for her, belong solely TO her... for he belonged to many more and was to sacrifice himself for them. Had he married, even allowed a "romantic" relationship, he would have eventually cheated the other party out of a life that was owed to her: he could not have withheld his body from her, for he "belonged" to her and her to him. Thus, his body would not have been his... to sacrifice.
A man and a woman are to enjoy one another's bodies, with JOY... not with apprehension, not with revulsion... and certainly not out of a false compulsion to simply please the other party. (Proverbs 5:19). If it ain't "genuine"... it's deceit... which is leaven... which is hypocrisy... which is "wrong": one is not being HONEST with one's mate, and therefore with the Christ.
In those instances when one truly does not feel "love" for one's mate due to abuse, etc., from that mate (and "abuse" comes in many forms, dear ones) so that one cannot enjoy being intimate, one needs to get to the "heart" of the matter with one's mate, if at all possible (meaning, if one's mate is willing to address to issues. Many times, unfortunately, a mate is not), and as soon as possible. If one's mate is not willing, one should not continue to function in deceit, but throw that "burden" on Christ. He will work it out FOR you... praise JAH... so that whatever the result, YOUR conscience... will be "clean".
Again, I bid you all the greatest of peace.
A slave of Christ,
SJ
LT,
Since Russell never came "out", what business is it of ours? Further, what's the big deal, whether he was or not? Would it make him a better or worse person for our knowing it with surety? Would it make us look up or down on him, more than our already formed opinions?
I agree that if Russell were gay it wouldn't make him better or worse,, gay is just another sexual orientation.
The point of it not being non of our business well I don't agree. If he claimed to be God's spokes person we have a right to poke around and see if he meets the "Bible" guidelines as far as "bible" morals are concerned,, for we all know what the bible says about sex with the same sex.
But in the end after everthing has been said I think we all can agree that Russell wanted to be the leader and did what ever it took to be one,, even using outright deciet.
LT, chill man, the above was said with tongue firmly in cheek. I really could care less about the whole subject one way or another, but I couldn't resist when the subject matter seemed to "go there." hhhmmmmmmmmm I'm going to have to check into lessons in getting my sense of humor to come across in writing....... no small task apparently
Sherry
It is one very reasonable assumption that he was gay and had a secret boy friend at least I think so
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!! I think someone has been smoking too many fatties tonite.
**edited to add**
How do you clean up lemonade that you spit all over your keyboard? I guess it's toast... oh well...
