djeggnog

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 660 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  169

  Rich Man and Lazarus

  by Ding in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

  1. who are the five brothers?.

  2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You may be putting your faith in God, but your knowledge of the true God is incomplete, so you cannot know God, and neither does God know you. (Galatians 4:9) You are in the same position as was that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke at John 4:22, when he told her that "You worship what you do not know." Jesus goes on to say at John 4:23, that "the true worshippers" of God would be those that be worshipping "the Father with spirit and truth," for God is "looking for suchlike ones to worship him." Contrary to what you may believe to be the case, your faith is not in God and His word.

  @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

  I cannot accept your misappropriation of [Galatians] 4:9. I take it that you consider your knowledge of God complete and that you therefore know (ginosko) Him. I must ask you to define your terms and support your assertions. Firstly, what constitutes complete knowledge of God? Secondly, what proof do you have that you have this complete knowledge? Thirdly, what scripture/s demonstrate that complete knowledge is the bases of knowing and being known of Him? And further please substantiate your assertion that I do not know God and that God does not know me.

  I didn't "misappropriate" anything, but I'll answer you this: To "know" [Greek _ginosko_] means to "come to know," "to recognize" or "to understand completely. To know God means to come into His acquaintance and to continually take in knowledge of Him so as to come to know or understand God's ways; it means to essentially love those things that God loves and hate those things that He hates. (John 17:3; Romans 12:9) To know God, too, one has "through use have [come to have] their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong." (Hebrews 5:14) As a part of his prayer to God, Jesus told his heavenly Father at John 17:25 that "the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth."

  You seem to want to turn this thread from one as to the meaning of Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus into one in which we explore the meanings of certain Greek words, but I have no such interest. The Bible indicates that those of you that refuse to accept God's word and yet desire to discuss the meanings of certain words are "mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." (1 Timothy 6:4) Consequently, I'm going to withdraw from this thread.

  Will the Sodomites be resurrected?

  Since I haven't withdrawn from this thread yet, I decided to make a few remarks regarding this off-topic bash-JW-every-chance-you-get digression of yours:

  1.Yes….Watchtower July/1879 p.8

  2.No…..Watchtower June/1/1952 p.338

  3.Yes….Watchtower August/1/1965 p.479

  5.Yes.....Watchtower October/15/1974 p. 20

  4.No…..Watchtower June/1/1988 p.31

  6.No......Watchtower June/1/1988 p. 30

  7.Yes….Live Forever (first edition) p. 179

  8.No…..Live Forever (later edition) p. 179

  I see you tried to get a cute "Yes-No" thing going, but, assuming your dates are correct, your recitation of these dates was a bit out of order, so, as you can see, I reordered them. In this case, it seems you could have omitted #4 and #5, and doing this would have shortened your "Yes-No" thing.

  This illustrates the fact that the primary faith of JWs is in men, not the Bible. Doctrinal modifications made by the GB always act as a corrective to change what JWs believe the Bible teaches.

  How so? This question as to whether the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected is not a primary doctrine of the Christ, and so it is not a primary doctrine of the faith held by Jehovah's Witnesses. It represents one of many questions that Christians discuss in connection with their study of the Bible. It may not be a topic in which you have an interest, and the only reason you might pursue this question is because one of your Bible students has asked you the question.

  The answer to any Bible question depends upon when it is asked, for what things Jehovah's Witnesses came to understand by the early 60s, Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 30s simply may not have understood in the same way. Our answer to any Bible question is based on our then-current understanding of the Bible. These modifications to which you refer here are decided upon by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but, to the contrary, they are made by Jehovah's Witnesses, many of whom have submitted these Bible questions for consideration, along with the scriptures that led them to a conclusion different than what had previously been understood, so that their might be a correct response given to them based on the information that is known at that time.

  Just because a particular issue of the Watchtower may include an article in it that provides our latest understanding of a matter does not mean that that matter is not still being discussed after that Watchtower has been published, for we cannot know whether what is determined to be the correct explanation at one time will prove to an incorrect one, rendering the discussion of it in a particular Watchtower article to be premature and an interim response to that question when a subsequent issue of the Watchtower should include in it a different response to that question than had previously been given in a previous issue of our periodical.

  For some Bible-related questions, it has taken many years of studying the Bible to discover the answers to them, for as you point out in your post, until 1988, this question regarding the Sodomites had been in flux since 1879, and that's ok since we are confident that whether or not we and others will gain everlasting life isn't going to be determined by a pop quiz on whether the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a literal account, or how do we reckon that the "seven times" of Daniel's prophecy ended in 1914, or whether or not the Sodomites will receive a resurrection after Armageddon. Everlasting life is based our taking in knowledge of Jehovah and his Christ (and, of course, our acting in harmony with that knowledge), nothing more.

  However, the Bible can never legitimately act as a corrective to change a JW's beliefs contrary to the organization's teachings.

  The teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible. Doctrinal changes or refinements in our doctrinal understanding of matters are often made to our beliefs when appropriate to do so, such as when, prior to 1979, we believed that Jesus had only given the apostle Peter two keys, so that a couple of study articles appeared in the October 1, 1979 Watchtower in which we all came to learn that there were three keys given to Peter by Jesus. Some Jehovah's Witnesses left our ranks, believing that this information should have been brought forward much earlier than it was since behind the scenes it was being discussed among Jehovah's Witnesses, so when these Watchtower article finally did appear, it didn't benefit those that had moved on in a disgruntled state.

  Thankfully, some of these disgruntled ones have since returned, but they learned, as should we, that there is no need for anyone to be running ahead of God's organization. Sure, the ones that left our ranks were right; the Sodomites will not be resurrected. There were three keys given to Peter by Jesus, not two. They were right. But arguments over doctrines aren't usually resolved overnight and can sometimes take a bit of time, since all of the information that bears on a particular topic must be given due consideration before the governing body can make a decision. In this way, we are able to all speak in agreement, teaching the same things, and "be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10)

  Various creeds developed as doctrinal changes were made in the Universal or Roman Catholic Church during the fourth century AD. For example, in 325 AD, at the Council of Nicea, at which the Trinity doctrine was formally adopted, the statement that the Son was "of one substance" with the Father was added to an earlier creed, and at the Council of Constantinople, the statement that the holy spirit is "adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son" was added, so doctrinal changes are not anything new. Didn't Pope Paul VI, back in 1966, modify the abstinence requirement imposing a dietary restriction for Catholics against eating meat on Fridays, so that eating meat on Fridays was no longer to be viewed as being a mortal sin (that is, except on Good Friday)?

  Now this doctrinal change isn't a scriptural one, but my point here is that Jehovah's Witnesses isn't the only Christian denomination in existence today to make them. Maybe you also accuse the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as putting its faith in men and not the Bible, and that's ok. In this case, you're being consistent. In the same way as you expressed it here, @Vanderhoven7, doctrinal modifications made by the Roman Catholic Church always act as a corrective to change what Catholics believe as well, and this despite, in their case, what the Bible actually does teach. But so what? If you do not wish to accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, go join another religion. If you do not wish to accept the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, go join another religion. What you should decide to do would be your choice to make.

  After all...it's the organizations' book; it wasn't written for the other sheep. Only the priesthood understands it. Ultimately then, their faith is in men who claim to speak for God.

  You're wrong; the Bible is was written for the benefit of all mankind. I don't follow your conclusion here.

  Effectively the Holy Spirit, is replaced by a group of self-acclaimed Bible scholars who can give any spin on doctrine they decide is the truth for the moment. Their interpretations must be considered right...because they were invisibly selected in April of 1919 to act as His sole channel of communication to mankind. Can't argue facts.

  Again, your view here is wrong. The Bible was written by means of God's holy spirit and the Bible cannot be replaced by anyone or anything; it is God's word.

  No matter how many [times] "Yes" changes to "No", it must be believed....or Armageddon will get you. It's not truth that matters; it's how you treat the elect remnant represented by the leaders in Brooklyn. But you know all this...so I'm just rambling. :^)

  Yes, you are. Stop it. <g>

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Lady Lee:

  I'm not going to re-post all that I had written earlier, but just the following:

  @Lady Lee wrote:

  DJ for a JW man who has unhealthy ideas about sex that is unfortunately exactly the attitude he pushed on me.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Before I continue with my remarks, as I parsed this portion of what you wrote in your post, it could be understood as your suggesting that I have "unhealthy ideas about sex." Is that what you're saying about me? If so, on what basis do you say this about me? If I am mistaken here and your sentence (quoted above) was just badly phrased, then please ignore my questions, @Lady Lee.

  Here's what I'm trying to understand this first portion: Who is the "JW man who has unhealthy ideas about sex..."? Were you referring to me or to your ex-husband? That was the question I asked. This is the question I'm asking you to answer.

  I read the three articles to which the links in your post on Page 2 pointed, and after reading them, these articles raised questions that I would normally be asking you now, except that I also listened to your YouTube Video sample, and this also left questions in my mind that I cannot ask you until I have heard the rest of that video. You said many things in your video with which I do not agree, and I feel I need to listen to the entire video where you talk about your experiences when you were one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I don't want to pay to see it, because I do not wish to support the cause of the folks hosting this video. If possible and convenient for you, please PM me a link so that I can see the entire video or download it. Thanks in advance.

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @miseryloveselders wrote:

  Captain, I didn't know you were also a Spiritual Psychiatrist. Thank you for diagnosing my problem. However, I think I'll seek a second opinion.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I am a spiritual physician, since you asked (sort of).

  @miseryloveselders wrote:

  C'mon Eggnogg, you did not just call yourself a spiritual physician?!!??!

  Yes.

  Don't think adding the "sort of" softens the arrogance of that statement.

  I'm a genius and I just don't think like this. Here's what I do think though: I think that you are either lacking in education or that you are somewhat dimwitted, one of the two, so let me help you here: I didn't write "I am a spiritual physician (sort of), since you asked," but "I am a spiritual physician, since you asked (sort of)," which, when parsed. would be understood by an educated person as an abbreviated way of saying "Well, I am a spiritual physician, since you were, in effect, asking me if I considered myself to be a spiritual physician."

  There's nothing arrogant about my statement. If you were sitting down in Christian meetings not understanding a thing that was going on in them, you should talk to me so we can discuss what things were going on in those congregation meetings you once attended, because if you didn't occur to you to ask questions of anyone as to the meaning of the very scriptures that I have used in this post during those meetings, then you completely missed the purpose of meeting attendance.

  For a fact, I know that many of the schools today in the US are continuing to graduate kids that are stupid, totally ignorant about the world in which we live. Many of them hardly know how to spell. My hope is that you aren't one of these kids all grown up, because this is a rather long message that would be lost on someone that should be too stupid to being able to comprehend what it is I have to say to you in this post and have been saying to you in this thread.

  I'm hoping in consideration of that segment of our discussion, you're joking and being cynical. If you really believe that, well....well I don't know what to say to you LOL!! I'll get to the rest of your nonsense later, but I just couldn't resist that. Spiritual Physician, my, my, my, SMH.

  This reminds me (sort of) of Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell (Delaware-R), who thought she had won a point in her debate with her opponent, Senatorial candidate Chris Coons (Delaware-D) after asking Coons whether the doctrine of separation of church and state was contained in the Constitution, and after being told by Coons in response that such a separation has been interpreted by the SCOTUS, she continued to beat her drum, even laughing (like you are) about this along with the audience, not realizing though that the audience was laughing at her!

  First of all, I never stutter. Secondly, it'll be obvious when I'm joking; I wasn't joking. Thirdly, what I said to you in my previous post about my being a spiritual physician wasn't nonsense at all, but was a scripturally sound statement. I included scriptural references below, so that you can look up the scriptures in the event you should think that I'm anything like you in misusing the Bible, claiming as many do here that you are a Christian while making sport of God's word (as you did, for example, when you told me in a previous post that "the very foundation of Christianity is acknowledging that we're sinners, whether it be in thought, word or action"), something that I would never do, Sport. (And you weren't joking, but was serious!)

  Look! When the Jews were freed from captivity in Babylon back in 539 BC and had returned to the Promised Land by 537 BC, God's prophecy by Isaiah was fulfilled: "And no resident will say: 'I am sick.' The people that are dwelling in the land will be those pardoned for their error." And fulfilled also was God's prophecy by Jeremiah: "I will heal them and reveal to them an abundance of peace and truth." (Isaiah 33:24; Jeremiah 33:6) Notice the association that is made here in these two scriptures between the sins of those returnees being pardoned and their being healed from their sickness. Since there were no physical healing of anyone's infirmities, no miraculous cures at all were performed by Jehovah on the Jews back in 537 BC, the healing they received was spiritual healing.

  Further illustrating why none of the Jews were saying, "I am sick," Isaiah's prophecy went on to say: "At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped. At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness." (Isaiah 35:5, 6) The fulfillment of this prophecy following the return from Babylon must have been So, in a spiritual sense, the spiritually blind, the spiritually deaf, the spiritually lame and the spiritually dumb were healed upon their release from bondage in Babylon by Jehovah.

  Having been restored to their homeland, true worship was reestablished in Jerusalem when the temple was rebuilt, where they were cleansed of their former sins against Jehovah. Eyes that had once been blind could now see the way forward and ears that had once been deaf could now hear Jehovah's commands and obey them. Legs that had formerly been lame and tongues that had formerly been dumb could now leap up joyfully in Jehovah's service and sings praises to their God.

  Fast forward six centuries later, the Lord Jesus Christ presented himself to the Jews also performing spiritual healing for them; he also effected many physical cures: "The blind are seeing again, and the lame are walking about, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, and the dead are being raised up, and the poor are having the good news declared to them. (Matthew 11:5) But for all of his works of physical healing, Jesus brought to the Jews works of spiritual healing as had been foretold to occur at Isaiah 61:1, 2:

  "Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year." (Luke 4:18, 19)

  Jesus opening the eyes of the formerly blind to Jehovah’s purposes, unstopped the ears of the formerly deaf to His commands, trained tongues formerly dumb to speak the truth of God and energized formerly lame to declare the good news, and he even bought spiritual life and activity to those who had been "dead in [their] trespasses and sins." (Ephesians 2:1)

  The only way that those that are dead in their trespasses and sins today can be made spiritually healthy is by means of God's word of truth, and then by holding fast to "the pattern of health words." (2 Timothy 1:13) Those who refuse to accept these healthful words of truth and teaches false doctrine instead are "mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." (1 Timothy 6:4)

  Christians today that wish to follow Jesus should likewise not spare themselves, but ought to be spending of their time and energies in the work of spiritual healing, feeling the same compassion as he for those who have been kept in spiritual darkness and so are dead in their trespasses, seeing those for whom Christ died as being "skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd." (Matthew 9:36)

  If anyone spiritually blind, deaf, dumb or lame refuses the healing "eyesalve" of God's word, "the pattern of healthful words," we will certainly move on as we search out those who do want spiritual hearing. (Revelation 3:18)

  In the first century, Christians were preaching "the good news of Jesus and the resurrection" was being preached, but now, the Lord Jesus Christ has ordained that Christians should be proclaiming the good news of the establishing kingdom of God, and "to live by means of the good news." (Acts 17:18; Matthew 24:14; 1 Corinthians 9:14) Since Christians know that people are spiritually ill, most of them spiritually dead, we are energized by God's spirit to help as many people as we can to feel better about the eternal future that God holds in store for all those worshipping Him "with spirit and truth." (John 4:24; 1 Corinthians 2:9)

  Christian cannot and will not hold back these healthful words from the nations to whom Jesus gave us the commission to preach since we know that God's patience will not wait indefinitely, and that, with each day that passes, we are one day closer to "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels," plus, were we not to share the good news with others, we would have bloodguilt on our hands, since our own salvation is tied to our "[living] by means of the good news. (2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 7:29; Ezekiel 33:8; 1 Corinthians 9:14, 16)

  Through his ministry, Jesus taught us that the greatest expression of loving our neighbor as ourselves is when we are sharing the good news with our neighbors, for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20) Next to loving God, there is no other commandment greater than loving our neighbor as ourselves, and Christians are commanded to do both, and by our so doing, we thereby reaffirm our love for God. (Mark 12:31; 1 John 5:2)

  While physical healing offers temporary benefits, the spiritual healing that Christians provide others regarding "the good news of peace" with God -- "the word of the reconciliation" that I am publishing to others -- offers permanent benefits, such as a perfect life in perfect health in a new world of righteousness under God's heavenly kingdom. (2 Corinthians 5:19, 20; Ephesians 2:17) That is why Christians endeavor to 'pay constant attention to ourselves and to our teaching, for by doing this we know that we will save, not only ourselves, but those that listen to us.' (1 Timothy 4:16)

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Scully:

  Please try to keep on topic.

  Ok. Please let me know in my future posts as well whenever it is you notice I've diverted from the topic started by @yknot as to why it is that a discussion of the marital due didn't make the cut, so to speak, in the new textbook. I do appreciate that you're willing to do this for me.

  @sd-7:

  Um...I'm not sure if my post was misunderstood. I should probably clear it up, then. My concern was that my wife claimed illness, but was never clear on what sort of illness, and she doesn't have any diseases or anything, and we were very sexually active for several months, then she suddenly stopped for awhile. I was confused and trying to figure out, well, is this something new, or was it always there? I would be very wrong to condemn her or blame her if she was legitimately sick or if it legitimately made her uncomfortable. I would never want her to feel guilty about that, because if it's a health reason why she can't do it, I totally understand and would never, ever justify adultery on that basis or any basis.

  I believe most of the people here may have understood your post just fine. But what I did understand is what I stated I didn't comprehend. You wrote:

  My wife saw [that QfR article] on my computer screen and went pretty ballistic, thought I was suggesting that I should have the green light for adultery because she'd been holding out for awhile, apparently due to a months-long illness that she never sought treatment for.

  Where exactly in this particular QfR article [w73 6/1, p. 352] does it suggest that adultery is permissible under any circumstance? Not only did you take such an idea away from your having read this article, but you specifically indicated that this is also what your wife concluded from seeing this article on your computer screen, so my question is what you did read in this QfR article that led to you and your wife forming this conclusion? I don't see place for such reasoning in this article.

  In @Scully's post, the following was quoted from this article:

  "The innocent mate may even have contributed toward the unfaithfulness of his or her marriage partner. If, for example, the wife has deliberately deprived her husband of the marital due, she bears a certain responsibility for what has happened. She is not altogether without blame from God’s standpoint," and a reference to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 was also cited.

  If this is the particular quote that you and your wife read that caused both of "you guys" to conclude that this somehow gives short shrift to God's command forbidding adultery, I don't see where this quote provides a single excuse to anyone. Please respond.

  I believe adultery to be wrong. Withholding does not give someone the right to cheat, in my opinion, but I don't judge anyone who makes that choice, because we're none of us free from sin.

  Well, that's where you and I differ, let's forget about adultery, since, not in the Middle East, but here in the Western world, only some religious folks believe fornication and adultery to be serious sins (Catholics often seek absolution from their priests during the week before hooking up that weekend!), and let me ask you what your opinion is of armed robbery.

  Now because "none of us [are] free from sin" that even though you believe stealing to be wrong, and murder to be wrong -- note I'm assuming in my long question here that you are against theft and murder -- would you judge those people that would walk into a liquor store or a bank and steal money at gunpoint, maybe killing one or two scared people in the process, who should make this choice? I'm not telling you how to answer my question, but a "yes" or "no" would be fine.

  I saved that '73 WT quote, and we agreed on this, because it points out how serious these matters can be.

  Again, you and your wife agreed on what now? That this QfR article gives short shrift to God's command forbidding adultery, or what?

  I think maybe therapy might be a good way for couples to talk about issues like this if they can't be open with each other. But I don't think the elders are equipped to help with that, nor do I think they should be entitled to information about someone's medical information.

  I think therapy might be a way that might help some couples with many of the issues that arise during their marriage, since some couples have had to get past sexual abuse that they thought was no big deal and forgotten until they got married, only to learn that the reason why their wives do not enjoy sex is due to vaginal cuts (tears) on or near the perineum, and some have opined (I cannot prove this though) that the discovery of lichens sclerosis in damaged or scarred skin on or near the vagina can be traced back to either toying with sex during one's youth or untreated vaginal tearing as the result of rape or incest during one's childhood.

  While uncircumcised males affected by lichens sclerosis are often cured by the removal of the foreskin, surgery doesn't cure these patches in women, and often the result is that husbands wrongly conclude that their wives are deliberately refusing to have sex with them. Ruptures and cuts in the flesh due to anal fissures (sphincter tears) after a hard stool may also make intercourse undesirable for woman.

  However, I do agree with you that the reasons for a wife's lack of sexual desire are not going to be something that a congregation elder will be equipped to handle as most are neither gynecologists (OB/GYNs) nor are they therapists, but what they should be doing is referring such matters out to trained medical professionals. An elder's wife could be brought in to help since if she doesn't have personal knowledge, she might have had some experience helping other women with similar issues. Hopefully, with this, I've strayed too far off topic again.

  If they won't inform people in the congregation about child molesters, then it serves no purpose for them to know any other sensitive information, since it's never about protecting the flock.

  What do you mean? From where are you getting this? It's hardly the case that brothers that are known to have been guilty of child molestation are even found attending meetings in the local congregation, but whenever any of them are known to be in attendance, the elders watch them the entire time, and I mean those brothers "in good standing" are constantly being monitored by the elders. It is about protecting the flock since these brothers are marked for life, that is, until the new system arrives.

  @miseryloveselders:

  No, you're mistaken. One doesn't necessarily grieve the holy spirit when he or she commits a sin. Recall that at 1 John 2:1, 2, the apostle John wrote:

  I think you missed you missed the word "practice" in my post. Had you noticed that, you would see that I'm right, and that you actually posted points that agree with my post. It would have saved you from doing all that typing anyways.

  I don't believe I missed the word "practice" in any of your posts, because this word wasn't used in any of them. Don't think there to be any need on your part to save me from what things I might type, ok? I'd rather you do what things the Bible indicates you need to do to save your life.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Do you know why you have such disdain for the "brotha"?You sound to me like a "sistah" rolling over the "brotha" because of envy. I say because I cannot remember whites speaking this way, so, to use the vernacular, why are you hatin' on the brotha like this? Why do you zero in like this on the "brotha" and not on one of the whites? What exactly did the brotha do to you? Maybe I'm asking the wrong question here: Do you hate these "old men" that comprise the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses with a special hatred for this "fake" brotha because you think he's perpetuatin' and not a real brotha, because a real brotha would never be a member of the Governing Body?

  @miseryloveselders wrote:

  Now this interesting. A real gem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had a feeling you have a tan.

  I have "a tan"? The difference between your worldview and mine is that you see things in black, brown and white, but, as I see it, first, there is no black-brown divide, only Latino envy, and second, brown is the new white so better get used to it, ese. Actually, I didn't know you knew his name because, before, you called Herd a "token brotha" and, homegirl, I can feel you, but is this thread about your racial views? Is it?

  Recently, I read something that is pertinent here: "Hay Gonzalez blanco, Hay Gonzalez negro, cada quien tiene, tiene del otro su poquitico." This means that "there are white Gonzalezes, there are black Gonzalezes, and everyone has a bit of the other. Now that's real.

  My instincts were going off. What really has my interest [piqued] though is that you seem to have caught offense over me dissing Brotha Herd. You know him personally or something? Because for someone concerned about me "sounding like a sistah rolling over the brotha because of envy", you sure come off like one of those fellas that grab their wife or girlfriend real close when guys like me step in the room.

  No, sistah girl. It's not like that. I was flossing over your concern with tokenism, which I think is code for racism. I think you're confusing your bigotry regarding folks as black as you with instincts, and these aren't the same thing, believe me. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying you have to like the man, 'cause you don't have to, but you did a complete 180° from our talking about "the very foundation of Christianity is acknowledging that we're sinners whether it be in thought, word, or action" to anti-black rhetoric. You came out nowhere with this, and I really couldn't tell if you were thinking the man was a cabron or what since we're talking about adultery in this thread.

  Since your one of my own, you're probably familiar with the phrase, "handcuffing em." I'm sure glad you're concerned enough about Brotha Herd to protect his reputation from brothas like me on the internet. What would he do without guys like you? The same thing he was doing before you decided to handcuff him, Captain Save-Em. Now Captain Save-Em, if you can't see the irony of that picture, well there's not much you and I can discuss....brotha. To be fair, maybe I'm being overly harsh on Brotha Herd. Maybe he's more of Jackie Robinson, as opposed to a JC Watts.

  Wow! Jackie Robinson and JC Watts are also black. You don't mind putting it out there what you are, and I think I like you for that. I think "closet" racists are dangerous people, you know what I mean? I think they should not be in there, but should come out and proud of who and what they are.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Who are you? You are a spiritual sister of mine that has lost her way, someone that I'm trying to encourage that you might get back on the Way. (John 14:6) My words here could be the ones that you will recall my saying to you by the time that the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ begins, and my hope is that you will have gotten past your anger against Jehovah and that you will also have gotten past what seems to me to be self-hatred and will have come back to Jehovah when that revelation begins. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

  @miseryloveselders wrote:

  Captain, I didn't know you were also a Spiritual Psychiatrist. Thank you for diagnosing my problem. However, I think I'll seek a second opinion.

  I am a spiritual physician, since you asked (sort of).

  Since you felt so obligated to psychoanalyze me, allow me to scratch your back! You state you are an old man that happens to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that you've been proclaiming and teaching others about the Kingdom. I tip my hat to ya fella. However I'm not so sure of what you claim sir. The reason is, if you truly are a no-blood card carrying Jehovah's Witness, who truly believes this is God's organization, and also truly believes the GB are God's chosen representatives on this mudball of a planet, then let me ask you a question. Why are you here?

  Excuse me while I lose my Puerto Rican accent here. (BTW, "sistah," I'm not Puerto Rican either.) I am interested in helping folks that have severed their relationship with God's organization to return to Jehovah. I know the reasons for their leaving are many, but if anyone here wants to talk to me about their doing that, I can help them. Not you, mind you, but the lurkers. Apparently you think you know more about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe than I do, but maybe after reading the article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones" [w74 8/1 paragraphs 24-26, pp. 472, 473], you'll discover that you're ignorant about a few things that we believe. I would invite you to read the article. BTW, you're off-topic.

  You've painstakingly taken the time to show myself and others on this forum the error of our ways. By you doing that, you brazenly go against the directives of God's chosen representatives. (Heb 13:17) Or do you get a pass from this directive for some reason unbeknownst to us?

  I need no such "pass." It is you that have read articles in WTS publications and thought you understood what they were saying, just as I pointed out to you about the QfR article that you totally misunderstood. What you need is to have a Bible study with me. Probably won't happen, but while you think you know more about what things the Bible teaches, you're wrong.

  So again I have to ask you Mr.Envoy of the Kingdom of God, why are you brazenly going against the directives of God's [anointed] representatives that you hold in such high esteem? You by being here, demonstrate a lack of faith by being here and posting. Your unsteady in your ways. (James 1:8) You can only be here for a few reasons. One of which is you have a beef with this organization. Another possibility is you doubt the validity of this organization's claims, and you're here testing what you've believed all these years by debating with us. There's other possibilities. Make no mistake though, by you being here and posting, you don't do a service for the WT. If anything, you actually further the apostate cause. Me personally I'm glad you're here allowing two sides of the coin to be exposed, but don't kid yourself by believing you're nobel in the WT eyes.

  First, you're repeating yourself here. (Scroll up.) Second, you're wrong on both counts. I have an agenda, but I've made it no secret. (Ask @Lady Lee.)

  This might get you a clap at the convention or assembly where the audience is looking for anything to liven that borefest up. Here on this forum, I smell your nonsense. Don't think because you're on Medicare and have went out in field service for a few years that I'm to believe your a cute little old man. No, your a man lacking faith in the organization you outwardly hold in high esteem. Secretly you post here, trying desperately to prove to yourself its "the truth." Or your one of the "unwanteds" at the Kingdom Hall, and this is how you tell yourself they still value you. Or maybe being one of the unwanteds, this is the closest you get to associating with JWs, damned if they're undercover apostate, or in bad standing. Stop fooling yourself Eggnogg. By the way, stop posting a bunch of paragraphs. It takes away from the good points you've made.

  You're not just angry and bitter about choices that you yourself made in the past, but you have no idea how dumb you come off here saying these things when even you were once one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Should I now be your disciple? I mean, how weak-minded would that be?

  I will post whatever it is I want to post, and if it turns out that my "posting a bunch of paragraphs" becomes necessary to make my point, I will. You can always skips my posts and not read them. Mine would be the ones with "djeggnog" superimposed over the avator. But I don't expect you to be able to control yourself from reading my posts (since it seems I really have a lot to say).

  I apologize for playing a part in hijacking this thread.

  Too late.

  @sd-7:

  Oh. So djeggnog is some sort of...JW? Uh...yeah. This is not a place JWs should be visiting. So...I'm just going to let my words stand as they were and not bother saying anything further in response. Any JW who comes here to debate people is in clear violation of the instructions the "slave" class has given about this. So if you're here to debate with 'apostates', you should not be. But it's all...hey, I could probably write verbatim everything you could (or should) possibly say myself, so...why would I bother?

  Whether you post any further responses to my posts is your choice to make. I'm not going to cry about it. You're mistaken to think that you know what I can or cannot do. These "instructions" to which you refer are written thusly because it is much easier to advise against engaging in some activity that could affect your spirituality than it is to say nothing. But only someone more mature that you apparently are would be able to comprehend what it is I'm saying here to you now. I thought things were laid out quite well in the article to which I referred @miseryloveselders (above),entitled "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones" [w74 8/1 paragraphs 24-26, pp. 472, 473]. I invite you to read this article, too. BTW, you're off-topic, too.

  And by the way, Hebrews 6:1, 2 talks about repentance from dead works. In order to display repentance, you have to first recognize that you're a sinner, which I believe was the point someone was making. So...recognizing you're a sinner is the foundation of Christianity, it's an integral part of the path to becoming a Christian. I think that's something every Christian can agree on. Why would there be a debate about that? You can't repent if you don't see yourself as a sinner. And then Hebrews 6:1, 2 has a lot less meaning, because you're not taking the basic steps to Christian faith.

  I had only in my last post to you pointed out how retarded your understanding of what you had earlier told me you understood to be "the foundation of Christianity," and I cited Hebrews 6:1, 2, which, true, does speak of "repentance from dead works," one of the six (6) things that the apostle Paul lists in this passage, but Paul was there talking about repentance from the dead works of the Law of Moses, for there were those that were thinking that they could earn God's forgiveness by their practicing the works that had been required of the Jews under the Law and thus prove themselves righteous before God, but Paul stated that "a man is declared righteous, not due to works of law, but only through faith toward Christ Jesus," and "a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law." (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28)

  I just had to throw that out there, but that's all I can say. I'm done.

  Well, I'm glad you gave me a chance to tell you a second time what I told you first time you made this zany statement about the foundation of Christianity being our "acknowledging that we're sinners whether it be in thought, word, or action," which is just wrong.

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote to sd-7:

  Let me be blunt here: If a married man has a "hard on" (literally or figuratively) for another woman, it is because of his own desire, it is because he allowed a passion for this other woman to be cultivated in his heart. The converse is true for the married woman. Jesus wouldn't give such a person a pass; neither should we.

  @miseryloveselders wrote:

  Where I disagree with you however, is about Jesus not giving one such a pass, and the thought that neither should we. I don't buy that for one second.

  Ok. I can accept this.

  The bible is clear on gross sinners, meaning those practicing sin, hence grieving the holy spirit, having no forgiveness left for them.

  No, you're mistaken. One doesn't necessarily grieve the holy spirit when he or she commits a sin. Recall that at 1 John 2:1, 2, the apostle John wrote:

  If anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world's.

  Did the apostle mean when someone says a swear word? Did he mean when someone shares a bit of gossip with someone? What about when someone speaks slightingly of one of the elders? Was he referring to murmuring, or did John mean the lie you tell someone about how you will see, depending on some future event, whether you will be in a position to loan him or her $100 when you know at the time that this person is the last person to whom you would loan money because you want to look good in his or her eyes?

  Or, did John mean, for example, that when a man withholds from his wife the fact that he selfishly bought a brand new iTouch with 32MB storage for $299.99, since he thought she wouldn't even notice its newness despite the fact that this new device has a built-in microphone, a camera and more storage than the 8MB he decided to retire, while previously telling her that he didn't think it a good time for her to buy that refurbished Humax Series 2 TiVo with the integrated DVD recorder for $169.00 because (really!) he had had his heart set on spending $130.00 more on a new iTouch, that by misleading his wife in this way, that he has grieved the holy spirit?

  Do you think adultery to be a more serious sin than lying or being deceptive? If so, why do you suppose we read at Revelation 22:15, that outside of the restored paradise earth will be "those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie." James writes at James 2:11: "For he who said: "You must not commit adultery," said also: "You must not murder." If, now, you do not commit adultery but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of law."

  And how exactly would you describe the difference between the sin of adultery and the sin of idolatry or the sin of murder or the sin of spiritism or "carrying on a lie"? James says there is no difference between them, for if one should commit a sin, that one becomes "a transgressor of law." But if we should commit a sin, John says that we have the Lord Jesus Christ, a righteous one, to cover our sins, he being "a propitiatory sacrifice" for them. Right? But do any of these sins constitute blasphemy of the holy spirit? Maybe, but not necessarily. But what if one should grieve the holy spirit by what we're doing or saying? Is there any forgiveness for us if we are grieving the holy spirit? Yes, there is.

  By doing this, we would be grieving the holy spirit. WHO WAS IT THAT TOLD YOU OTHERWISE? Did you read this in the Bible yourself or did you just assume that because you may have grieved God's spirit in the past, and were disfellowshipped from God's organization as a result, that you had committed the unforgivable sin and that it was impossibility for you to return to Jehovah?

  At Ephesians 5:3-5, we read Paul’s counsel about avoiding prurient interest in fornication. The apostle Paul spoke about those that engaged in shameful conduct, even obscene jesting, and if our choice of entertainment includes our taking a prurient interest in immorality, in us seeing two actors on the Big Screen or on our DVRs acting out a sex scene, and in our talking about these movies, reading books and magazines about sex, and viewing such on cable tv, these could all be cases of our grieving God's holy spirit. But are any of these things unforgivable sins? No, they are not.

  At Ephesians 4:30, Paul urged Christians to "not be grieving God's holy spirit, with which you have been sealed for a day of releasing by ransom," for it is God's spirit that serves to help us to avoid sinful works. So, then, if we began a pattern of ignoring Bible counsel, we would then be resisting God's spirit, and we could then start developing traits that could result in our practicing sin willfully, "[f]or if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left." (Hebrews 10:26) If you are engaging in willful sin, that is to say, that you are sinning by choice due to your contempt for Jehovah, only then does resisting and grieving God's spirit constitute blasphemy of it.

  Are you deliberately rejecting God's word? Then you would be grieving God's holy spirit, but are you deliberately rebelling against the evident manifestation of God's spirit? In this case, then you would be blaspheming the holy spirit, which is the unforgivable sin.

  I have been teaching the word of God for many years, and if you want to teach others what God's word says -- you may not, but if you do -- then you must not make up things that the Bible does not say, make up things that the Bible contradicts.

  At the same time, the very foundation of Christianity is acknowledging that we're sinners whether it be in thought, word, or action. [These] actions do in fact include [infidelity], amongst similar sins and worse.

  No, no, no. "The very foundation of Christianity" is specifically spelled out in the Bible by the apostle Paul at Hebrews 6:1, 2: "Repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment"; these things, and you would forever forget what you said here to me today as to what you indicated to be "the very foundation of Christianity."

  Please never again say that "the very foundation of Christianity is acknowledging that we're sinners, whether it be in thought, word or action," because that is simply not true, and now you know that this is not true because God's own word itself -- Hebrews 6:1, 2 -- says that you were WRONG. Please promise yourself that you will never ever tell anyone what you told me here today. Saying to others what the Bible says is consonant with speaking the truth, but when we should speak against the truth, we are rebelling against the evident manifestation of God's spirit just as the Pharisees did when they saw -- not what things we read today in God's word -- but the manifestation of the spirit's operation through Jesus in his many miracles and called it the spirit of the demons, the spirit of Beelzebub. (Matthew 12:24)

  Note, too, this point: Jesus said at Matthew 12:31 that "blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven," but the very first thing that he says in this verse is that "every sort of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven." Is marital infidelity a sin? Yes. Will it be forgiven. Yes, it will be forgiven. What if you were to say the words out loud, "Fuck Jehovah"? What if at the time you uttered these words you totally meant, "Fuck Jehovah"? Would this be blasphemy? Yes. Will it be forgiven? Yes, it will be forgiven. Is this just my opinion? No. Am I saying that Jesus said that such blasphemy will be forgiven? Yes. And these words of Jesus' are is in the Bible? Yes.

  @miseryloveselders, the holy spirit speaks through God's word and God's word is speaking to you right now, so please do not resist it; please do not grieve it. "Receive holy spirit." (John 20:22)

  We must acknowledge that we are sinners because we were all born as such, we were all born that way, we were all conceived in sin, we are all of us the children of Adam and Eve. (Psalm 51:5) Our common father could not pass on to his children what he no longer had, perfection. So what we are -- not what we think, not what we say, not what we do, but what we are, sinners -- is because through Adam "sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because we had all sinned." (Romans 5:12)

  [Where] you lose me Eggnog, is by saying that "neither should we."

  Where exactly did I lose you? I had said in my previous post that if a man should allow a passion for another woman not his wife to be cultivated in his heart, then it would be because of his own desire, and that the converse would be true for a woman. What was reported (in another post) was that the elders in one congregation had actually blamed the wife of a man that had committed adultery for his cultivation of sexual desire for another woman due to his wife's unwillingness to pay the marital due, and so I also said that Jesus wouldn't give such a person a pass and neither should we, as in "we Christians" shouldn't be making excuses for someone's immorality.

  At that point, I have to ask the question, who are you? Who am I? Who are the several old men comprising the GB along with the token brotha amongst them?

  Do you know why you have such disdain for the "brotha"?You sound to me like a "sistah" rolling over the "brotha" because of envy. I say because I cannot remember whites speaking this way, so, to use the vernacular, why are you hatin' on the brotha like this? Why do you zero in like this on the "brotha" and not on one of the whites? What exactly did the brotha do to you? Maybe I'm asking the wrong question here: Do you hate these "old men" that comprise the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses with a special hatred for this "fake" brotha because you think he's perpetuatin' and not a real brotha, because a real brotha would never be a member of the Governing Body?

  Who am I? I'm an old man that happens to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I believe you already know this, so, who am I? I'm an envoy of the kingdom of God that has spent hours over the years proclaiming and teaching others about "the good news of salvation." (Psalm 96:2)

  Who are you? You are a spiritual sister of mine that has lost her way, someone that I'm trying to encourage that you might get back on the Way. (John 14:6) My words here could be the ones that you will recall my saying to you by the time that the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ begins, and my hope is that you will have gotten past your anger against Jehovah and that you will also have gotten past what seems to me to be self-hatred and will have come back to Jehovah when that revelation begins. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

  Your post comes off to me as if you get off on being judge, jury, and you're dying, absolutely dying to be the executioner too. Imperfect men judging imperfect men.

  I don't exactly know what to say to this. I don't judge you at all, for you have already been judged. But, "if I do judge, my judgment is truthful," because my judgment is really Jehovah's judgment, and anyone not exercising faith in the Son "has been judged already." (John 8:16; 3:18)

  @djeggnog wrote to sd-7:

  Let me be blunt here: If a married man has a "hard on" (literally or figuratively) for another woman, it is because of his own desire, it is because he allowed a passion for this other woman to be cultivated in his heart. The converse is true for the married woman. Jesus wouldn't give such a person a pass; neither should we.

  @miseryloveselders wrote:

  We're you lose me Eggnog, is by saying that "neither should we." At that point, I have to ask the question, who are you? Who am I? Who are the several old men comprising the GB along with the token brotha amongst them? Your post comes off to me as if you get off on being judge, jury, and you're dying, absolutely dying to be the executioner too. Imperfect men judging imperfect men.

  @mrsjones5 wrote:

  Misery, you hit it square on the nose. Thanks for expressing that thought.

  What thought?

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @sd-7

  My wife saw it on my computer screen and went pretty ballistic, thought I was suggesting that I should have the green light for adultery because she'd been holding out for awhile, apparently due to a months-long illness that she never sought treatment for.

  I don't follow this reasoning at all, but ok.

  I thought it highlighted the seriousness of sex within marriage, more than the obligation of any one person to provide the 'due'.

  And this IMO the QfR article does!

  It's sad that this stuff even needs discussion. Good couples should be able to talk this kind of stuff out. And not have elders telling women to give it up or blaming them for adultery, because adultery happens because of more than just no sex, if you ask me...

  Well, I think "this stuff" does deserve discussion and thoughtful consideration, for not every "good couple" comes from a background where things like this can be discussed between them. (The wife, for example, would likely speak about the matter with their mother or with an aunt to whom she is close about her husband, or the husband might approach his father or his favorite uncle about what he's feeling about his wife.)

  But there are reasons that certain things may not have been divulged to one's spouse before the marriage that may be contributing to the physical and/or emotional problems that one or the other of them is having when it comes to sex with their mate that a mature brother or sister in the congregation might be approached by them to discuss, and it will take courage to do this, for some may unknowingly be suffering from one of the many diseases that flow from oral sex and/or anal sex in which they engaged during their youth. With oral sex, there's chlamydia, chronic Hepatitis B, cytomegalovirus, genital herpes, genital warts, Hepatitis B, Herpes simplex, HIV/AIDS, pelvic inflammatory disease, pubic lice, sexually transmitted diseases and scabies. With anal sex comes all of the above, including amoebiasis, cryptosporidiosis, E. coli infections, giardiasis, gonorrhea, granuloma inguinale, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis C, human papilloma virus (HPV), Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8), lymphogranuloma venereum, syphilis, trichomoniasis, salmonellosis, shigella and tuberculosis, and this past behavior may only come to be divulged to one's partner after the marriage day. And whether that mature brother or sister approached should be an elder or not, there will definitely be the concern that he or she might be a gossip, and that your medical issue or medical history may become common knowledge to those that are expert at listening to gossip.

  Elders do not have the authority to tell women to "give it up" and they certainly have no right to be "blaming them" for the decision by their spouse to commit adultery. God's word says, that "each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death." (James 1:14, 15) And I would remiss to not point out here the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, who didn't subscribe to this "blame game" of some, and said: "Everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

  Let me be blunt here: If a married man has a "hard on" (literally or figuratively) for another woman, it is because of his own desire, it is because he allowed a passion for this other woman to be cultivated in his heart. The converse is true for the married woman. Jesus wouldn't give such a person a pass; neither should we.

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Lady Lee:

  @Scully quoted the following from a QfR article [w73 6/1, p. 352]: "The innocent mate may even have contributed toward the unfaithfulness of his or her marriage partner. If, for example, the wife has deliberately deprived her husband of the marital due, she bears a certain responsibility for what has happened. She is not altogether without blame from God’s standpoint," at the end of which quote 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 was cited. You said:

  This is what I had thrown at me all the time. It would be my fault if he committed adultery.

  I didn't read any of this in this statement you quoted from the QfR article, but you did. Even if it were a fact that you may have contributed to your husband's unfaithful conduct toward you, this statement doesn't stand for the proposition that you did contribute in any way to his decision to engage in unfaithful conduct toward you. The statement you quoted states "The innocent mate may even have contributed toward the unfaithfulness of his or her marriage partner." Do you understand that no definitive statement was being made here that excuses your husband from what he was doing to you, elder or not? These WTS articles are not a substitute for the Bible, although, granted, some do tend to use them as such by twisting the words in them to support whatever their point of view might be on a matter. I understand this, but I don't do it. I try to be straightforward in my dealings with others.

  If you yourself think these quoted words to be a license for a husband to rape his wife, then you've got another think coming, @Lady Lee. Your husband had no right to rape you, which is exactly what forcing sexual intercourse with one's spouse is. But I couldn't tell from your post -- and maybe others here know the answer to my question already because you have already disclosed this to them here publicly, I don't know -- but if this is not a secret: Was your husband disfellowshipped for his adultery or was your unwillingness for whatever reason to render to your husband his marital due accepted as an excuse so that he was given a pass by those assigned to his Judicial Committee? I don't know the facts, but it seems to me that if he blamed you for withholding the marital due that he could not have been repentant.

  And like Scully said he wasn't held responsible for my adultery although that wasn't because I wasn't getting enough. it was to get him to leave me alone.

  Wait! Now with this, what you seem to be saying here is that there was a tit-for-tat thing between you and your husband, so that even you committed adultery "to get him to leave [you] alone"? Am I getting this wrong?

  @Scully wrote:

  And yet, in requiring that The Marital Due™ be Rendered™, more or less on demand, the WTS is setting up married JW couples for just such a scenario.

  @Lady Lee wrote:

  exactly. The WTS set this rule in motion and my husband took advantage of it fully. When you feel like it is an obligation, a duty to perform there is nothing loving about it. It becomes no different a duty than washing the floors or scrubbing the toilet

  I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't endeavor to set up any married couple among Jehovah's people so that the husband might get away with raping his wife. That's just nonsense. Just to be clear here, in the US English lexicon, the word "due," as translated from the Greek text at 1 Corinthians 7:3, is a synonym for the words "obligation," "duty" and "requirement." This marital "due" is a conjugal duty, that a wife owes as a debt to her husband, and the husband owes as a debt to his wife; which due they mutually agreed to render when they became husband and wife. But no one that commits adultery can excuse themselves by blaming anyone, least of all their spouse, for what he or she has done. Nowhere do we find in the Bible anything contemplative of such an excuse for immorality.

  @elderelite wrote:

  The ending quote "sex without love is futile but love can stand alone" always seemed like the society's way of saying "suck it the hell up" to me.. again I'm a man so take that for what its worth.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  No, that would be you badly paraphrasing something you were reading in an article based on your own pathological viewpoints with regard to (a) the WTS and (b) sex inside (or outside) of marriage. This "ending quote" is on you and has nothing at all to do with anything that has been or is being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @Lady Lee wrote:

  DJ for a JW man who has unhealthy ideas about sex that is unfortunately exactly the attitude he pushed on me.

  Before I continue with my remarks, as I parsed this portion of what you wrote in your post, it could be understood as your suggesting that I have "unhealthy ideas about sex." Is that what you're saying about me? If so, on what basis do you say this about me? If I am mistaken here and your sentence (quoted above) was just badly phrased, then please ignore my questions, @Lady Lee.

  I had no rights and only obligation to service him when he wanted.... I most certainly felt like the attitude of the WTS was "suck it up" I would think many women who had a husband like mine would have felt exactly the same way.

  Ok, but I'm still not clear on what happened in your case, or even if you are interested in sharing with me, or with anyone, what action was taken, if any, for your husband's adultery. It does seem to me that if you thought your husband to have been abusive toward you (and your description here certainly sounds like it!), that you could have divorced him scripturally so as to protect yourself from further physical abuse. I don't ask you what you did, if anything; that's your business. I'm merely asking you if your husband was disfellowshipped for his sin of adultery.

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @miseryloveselders wrote:

  However, often enough when a person commits [infidelity], they're so far gone that when they appear before the Judicial Committee, its unlikely they'll show remorse.... I don't think [infidelity] leading to divorce automatically leads to a DFing. I can see a [reproof] depending on the extenuating circumstances and the defendant's attitude toward the whole thing.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  There is no due process of law and no defendants in God's organization. There is nothing automatic about disfellowshipping someone, for the purpose of the Judicial Committee is to determine whether there is repentance on the part of the one that has committed this serious offense against God and against his own body.... Also, the decision made by one Committee might seem more harsh than a similar decision made by another Committee for the dynamic in one Committee will often be different in another Committee....

  @miseryloveselders wrote:

  I don't know if you had a minor lapse of thought LOL, or maybe you view the WT as such a bastion of light that you're blinded to all reasonable [criticism] of the WT. Egg, its called a Judicial Committee for crying out loud LOL. Judicial as in Judiciary, or Judicature, as in Justice, as in Jury, as in Jurisdiction, you get the point. The accused are in fact defendants, maybe not in a court of law respected by Caesar, but you ask anybody in here who's ever faced a Judical Committee, they probably felt like a defendant. Most probably felt like they knew they were convicted before even showing up....

  There are no defendants, no due process of law under the Theocracy. In the world, due process is based on the "law of the land" to which the government is subservient, the US Constitution being the supreme "law of the land," but under the Theocracy, there is but one law, God's law, which is superior of any laws conceived by man to effect justice in the land. Jehovah is the Lawmaker, and His laws, codified in the Bible, are supreme, and unlike due process, there can be no law imposed that limits the reach of God's law into a person's life. Any laws promulgated by man are subservient to the laws of the Theocracy, and if found to be in conflict with Divine Law may not be used against anyone in a Judicial Committee.

  For example, in the US, a police officer is prohibited from conducting a search of your vehicle, including a search of the trunk, just because he or she has a suspicion that you are guilty of some crime, and if the officer's curiosity should get the best of him or her and he or she conducts such a search without your permission, the officer's conduct will be sanctioned in a court of law as an unlawful search, and anything discovered during the search, pursuant to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), may not be used against you since the discovery constitutes the fruit from the poisonous tree (i.e., the illegal search) since a limit is imposed on the government's actions as the government is expressly prohibited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution from violating a citizen's constitutional right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

  A store detective can search a customer's property (purse, handbag, clothing, pockets) in an abundance of caution that you may have been leaving the store with store merchandise on your person for which you had no intention to pay, and such a search would not be a violation of your constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure by the government. Nor would your Fifth Amendment right from self-incrimination be implicated by any incriminating statement you should make and confess to in writing at the store at the urging of the store detective since this right only applies should the government agent -- the police officer -- interrogate you about this crime after having advised you of your constitutional right to remain silent and be represented by an attorney at all phases of your interrogation.

  Now if a police officer should conduct such a search at the store based on a complaint made against you by the store detective for theft (i.e., shoplifting) absent proof being presented to the officer of the likelihood that a crime had been committed (e.g., items with store tags still affixed to the merchandise said to been secreted away on your person), then the officer, who is a representative of the government and did not seek and obtain a search warrant signed by a magistrate before conducting the search, thereby intruded upon your constitutional right against his or her conducting an unreasonable search, and the case filed against you must be dismissed since whatever was discovered during the illegal search would be thrown out in court as a violation of your constitutional rights.

  However, any incriminating statements that you made in the hearing of the police officer after you had been Mirandized (that is to say, after you had been advised of your constitutional right to remain silent [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)]) or any statement that you signed at the store at the behest of the store detective may still be used against you at trial, even though the allegedly stolen items were excluded as evidence against you. Rather, based on the complaint of the store detective, the officer should have transported you and the allegedly stolen items from the store to the precinct, where you and they would have been booked as evidence while bail, if required, were arranged for your appearance in court where the case could have been properly adjudicated.

  Did you get all of that? I'm going to say what I said earlier in this post again for emphasis: Under the Theocracy, there is no due process of law. Ok? There is the accused -- you -- but there are no defendants. For there to be a defendant, there must be a plaintiff and there is none. In Judicial Committees involving two or more brothers that were involved in a business transaction that went all wrong, there would be an accuser and the "accusee," that is, the accused.

  For example, let's say one brother contracted with another brother in writing to paint two houses for a specific amount, but because the contracting brother miscalculated the cost and had to buy more paint, he decided it would be fair to deduct half the cost of the paint from the contracted brother's end, so that instead of the contracted brother receiving the agreed-upon wages of, say, $2,000.00, he was given only $1,750.00, since the additional paint cost $500.00, for which half of the cost ($250) was deducted from the contracted brother's end by the contracting brother. You may know how this matter is going to be decided by the Judicial Committee, but you could be wrong.

  The right decision is that the offset, the amount deducted from the contracted brother, was improper since such a deduction wasn't contemplated in the written agreement, but a Judicial Committee might decide the contracted brother to have been unreasonable to the contracting brother and that the contracted brother is imputing wrong motives to the contracting brother, who should not have had to bear the entire $500 cost alone. Again, this would be the wrong decision, but the apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 6:7 stated the following:

  Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?

  Sometimes there can be a wrong decision, but, under the Theocracy, there is no due process of law. We let ourselves be wronged, we let ourselves be defrauded. We don't leave God's organization over a bad decision made by elders, a bad decision made by imperfect men. We don't allow a wedge between ourselves and Jehovah to emerge just because those appointed as elders in God's organization made a wrong decision, a biased decision, an improper decision, a stupid decision against us.

  [DIGRESSION BEGINS]

  I'm going to digress here a second just to say -- since I have your attention and the attention of lurkers reading my posts here -- that if you (not you @miseryloveselders, but the royal "you") are angry over the decision of the elders to disfellowship you, if you are angry that none of your former friends (or even your real friends) in the truth are speaking to you any more (they can say, "Hi!" at the supermarket or at the doctor's office, and they can extend common courtesies to you if they should see you walking home in the rain as you are driving home or see you struggling to extract your inhaler at the mall when they know you have asthma, but they don't do so because they take literally 2 John 10, 11, and do you wish to be "a sharer in [your] wicked works"), why the attitude against Jehovah? What did He do to you?

  You learned from your study of the Bible that you, like the elders, are imperfect people, so that hold the elders to such a standard that even you cannot meet? Why not, as Paul said at 1 Corinthians 6:7, "let yourselves be wronged?" Why not "let yourselves be defrauded?" If your family is as important to you as you claim they are, do can what Paul also said at Colossians 3:13: "Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Even as Jehovah freely forgave you, so do you also."

  Taking out your anger on Jehovah and leaving His organization is not unlike cutting off association with your mother and father because of the actions taken against you by your older sister.

  Further to understanding what the apostle John was saying at 2 John 10 11 about our becoming "a sharer in [the] wicked works" of the disfellowshipped person by "[receiving] him into your [home] or [saying] a greeting to him," there are too many occasion when we might see the disfellowshipped individual at the supermarket, at the county office where we in the regular course of our business go to obtain permits or to pay license fees, at the barber shop or at the beauty salon, and they might work at these enterprises or they might be customers just like you in these places. You might even have business dealings with one or more of the disfellowshipped person's relatives with whom they live.

  What? So because one member of the family has been disfellowshipped, then the rest of the disfellowshipped person's family are to be treated with contempt for having a disfellowshipped relative? It's their fault that their disfellowshipped relative committed a sin and wasn't repentant in the estimation of the elders that took the action against their relative? What about mercy? Is the family not already hurting over the intimacy that they can no longer enjoy with their disfellowshipped relative? You have judged and are now taking the initiative to go beyond what the apostle John said and have painted the entire family as unworthy of receiving life under the kingdom? You feel it would become a sharer in the disfellowshipped person's wicked works were you to visit your brothers and sisters that all live in the same home where the disfellowshipped person resides should he or she answer the door and greet you at the door, do you? You courageously visit householders at their door all of the time, but are petrified at the door of the disfellowshipped one, even though he or she didn't come to visit you, and you didn't go to visit him or her?

  In such a circumstance, these are the words you might have to say at the government office: "Hi. I'm here to ...."

  In such a circumstance, these are the words you might have to say at the barber shop or at the beauty salon: "Yes, we are both Jehovah's Witnesses, but he received a sanction like when an athlete is not permitted to play for six games and so we aren't free to discuss the matter during his 'suspension.'"

  In such a circumstance, these are the words you might have to say at the disfellowshipped person's house should he or she be the one to answer the door and greet you at the door: "Hi. I'm here to see your mother. Is she here?" And if she's not home: "Then, would you let her know that I came by and to call me?"

  From the article "Imitate God's Mercy Today": "While the elders will continue to shepherd the Christians in the family, we might find that we too can visit without having dealings with the expelled person. If the disfellowshipped one happens to answer when we visit or telephone, we can simply ask for the Christian relative that we are seeking." [w91 4/15, paragraph 19, p. 24].

  What's so hard about doing any of this? Nothing, but there is immaturity among Jehovah's Witnesses, too, and many disfellowshipped persons often come to realize this when they happen to meet their former brothers and sisters in the communities where they live. When those not Jehovah's Witnesses see the way Jehovah's Witnesses treat disfellowshipped persons, they are often appalled by the lack of common courtesy shown to disfellowshipped persons, which affects their view of Jehovah's Witnesses and tarnishes our reputation for being loving people. People need to grow up in love! (Ephesians 4:15)

  If I see one of Jehovah's Witnesses treating any disfellowshipped person unkindly, as if they are out to embarrass them in public in front of folks that do not know God and do not know the reasons why some are disfellowshipped from God's organization and often have no knowledge about the issue that led to the disfellowshipment, I will briefly explain that "He (or she) may now be on suspension, but hopefully you won't regret what you're doing now when his (or her) suspension is over." The point to keep in mind that disfellowshipped ones are still dedicated brothers and sisters, which is why no need exists to rebaptize them when they return.

  [END OF DIGRESSION]

  As far as due process of law, Egg, there's an appeal process, there's witnesses, according to the new book if my memory serves me correct the witnesses don't even have to be Jehovah's, if you catch my drift. After the defendant has been convicted, its put on his permanent record, and even sent to the brothers in New York. You can liken the private reproval to a misdemeanor, and the DFing to a felony conviction. Since we're discussing marital [infidelity] and grounds for scriptural divorce, there are some choice articles in the WT CD Rom about new evidence coming up after the Judicial committee settled the matter. When that occurs, they sometimes pursue a new [judicial] committee, one might call it a retrial, with new evidence.

  I might as you what were you doing reading the new textbook that was written specifically for the benefit of congregation elders, but I won't. Of course, you are free to regard a reproof as being like a misdemeanor conviction and a disfellowshipment as being like a felony conviction; I do not, and I do catch your "drift." There is indeed an appeals process, but if someone disfellowshipped or who was later reinstated after having been disfellowshipped should move to another congregation, without there being a record, how would the local elders in a different congregation know what weakness a brother or a sister might need their attention?

  Also, how would the local elders of a different congregation come to know that a particular brother is disqualified from serving as an elder or in any capacity whatsoever until the New Order? Some offenses committed in this life do not merit the offender, although a reinstated brother in good standing, being accorded the privilege of being an attendant holding a microphone during a meeting or directing cars in and out of the parking lot.

  What if the brother or sister has a problem with alcohol, which problem was kept in check at one congregation because the elders were aware of it, but the elders at a different congregation were not made aware of it, and the brother or sister should harm himself or herself at a Christian gathering of some sort largely because no one at that gathered knew that the brother or sister had been disfellowshipped or had been reinstated after having been disfellowshipped for drunkenness due to his or her being an alcoholic? I'm not sure what you are saying here, but the fact that there is an appeals process does not mean that there is due process of law or defendants in the Theocracy.

  Egg, make no mistake about it, there is due process and defendants, and a whole lot more that resembles Caesar's laws and processes.

  What may resemble a mushroom could well be a toadstool. Perhaps you've heard this before, but Christians are not under law, Caesar's laws or anyone else's, but under undeserved kindness. (Romans 6:14)

  @Scully:

  According to Caesar's Laws, there is a principle whereby the punishment should fit the crime. There's no such principle in a JW kangaroo court. You are either Marked™, Reproved™, Disfellowshipped™ or Disassociated™. All three pronouncements (Marking™ is the exception because they don't announce people as being Marked™) are dealt with in the same manner. The individual is treated like $h!t, gossipped about and viewed with suspicion, even if the outcome of the hearing is inconclusive and no decision is reached, the person can be 'convicted by gossip mill' - I've seen it happen. I've been the subject of the JW gossip mill and know the way it can destroy your life.

  According to Caesar's Laws, the defendant (accused) has the right to legal counsel, and the right to establish their defense with witnesses. There are no such rights in a JW kangaroo court.

  This isn't true at all. Above, @miseryloveselders makes the following point about witnesses with which I concur:

  As far as due process of law, Egg, there's an appeal process, there's witnesses, according to the new book if my memory serves me correct the witnesses don't even have to be Jehovah's, if you catch my drift.

  You're right when you say that the accused has the right to legal counsel in courts of law, but under the Theocracy's law, no. As part of the process, one may even appeal to the brothers in Brooklyn.

  According to Caesar's Laws, the defendant (accused) is deemed innocent until proven guilty. There is no such principle in a JW kangaroo court, the accusation is deemed credible and the accused must prove their innocence.

  According to Caesar's Laws, the defendant (accused) is not required to answer questions that could incriminate them. In a JW kangaroo court, the accused has already been incriminated whether they respond to the accusations or not. They can be DFd in absentia without ever appearing before the Judicial Committee™ or offering a defense.

  According to Caesar's Laws, the defendant (accused) has the right to face their accusers. In a JW kangaroo court, no accusers ever have to face the accused. The Elders™ form a committee based on the private statements of others, whose identities are kept confidential.

  The accused is not deemed guilty nor is the accusation made deemed to be credible. The inquiry made isn't about guilt or innocence. The inquiry made is motivated by a desire to help the errant one find their spiritual bearings, if indeed they have lost their bearings, that they might regain their footing. Whether the accusation made proves to be true or false, the goal is to find repentance should a sin, in fact, have been committed. If none is found, a sanction may follow and it need not be as severe as disfellowshipment. At no time does anyone need to prove their innocence to anyone in a Judicial Committee. If no such "proof" even exists, then how does one prove a negative?

  There are times when facing one's accusers would be inappropriate, such as when the accuser is an eight-year-old boy or girl and the accusation involves improper touching, pedophilia. If you don't understand this, I'm not going to take the time to explain the inappropriateness of conducting such inquiries -- not trials, mind you, but inquiries -- where teens or pre-teens are the subject of such inquiries, but just know that many adults that have children would understand the handling of such matters by proxy than face-to-face, since the goals of parents is to raise their children to become mature adults and to protect them from those that would harm them until they should become such.

  Don't EVER compare the JW tribunal / kangaroo court / Judicial Committee™ to a real legal system. It's on the same level as Islamic Sharia Law, where there are corruption, collusion and a good-ol-boys network.

  There is no "JW tribunal," no "kangaroo court," no Islamic (sharia) law practiced among Jehovah's Witnesses. You are, of course, free to believe whatever it is you want to believe, even if what things you believe are not true. You may have a lot of ideas about the law, and so do I (as to what motivates you to be saying what things you have said here). What things I've expressed here in this thread (about the law and about Jehovah's organization) are just a few of them. My hope is that after reading this post, you will stop pretending to know more about things than you really do not know.

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @notverylikely:

  Then when the get home late after the elders meeting (because she pushed him to be an elder because she wanted status when all he wanted was to watch the damn game) she complains that she is too tired even though the entire day has been exactly what she always wanted....

  Seriously, it's all about perspective...

  What you said here I've found to be all too true (and funny). When one's circumstances do not permit one who has reached out to continue doing so, one should step down until one's circumstances should improve, for when a man is appointed to serve as an elder in the local congregation, so does his wife (they are "one flesh"), and she may have to make adjustments (that this to say exercise patience), for an elder will not be as available to his wife as he may have been before becoming such, especially if there are children, and he definitely cannot serve if he is exasperating them by being a "no-show" dad or bitterly criticizes them for things that may have turned out differently if everything affecting the children didn't fall to mom as a stand-in for Daddy the Elder. (Colossians 3:21) It is all about perspective.

  @miseryloveselders:

  I don't have much to add to this thread other than both Eggnogg and Metatron are right to a degree. Chances are if you follow the quick solution Metatron states, she's going to want a divorce. Its pretty much guaranteed that she's going to do it. When it comes to a DFing, its not a given that just because [infidelity occurred] and it led to a divorce, that they're going to DF you.

  No one is disfellowshipped for divorcing their spouse. No body of elders has the authority to tell any sister or brother that he cannot divorce his or her mate. However, the elders are put on notice after a divorce has occurred as to whether the grounds for the divorce was the scriptural one, for a judicial committee is going to be formed if the grounds for the divorce was adultery. If not, then keeping God's congregation spiritual clean requires that both "divorced" persons conduct themselves as if they were married to someone since, in God's view, the divorce itself would not be enough to sever the marital tie, and dating others or even been flirtatious would be inappropriate while both of them are living as divorced persons not scripturally free to marry. (Luke 16:18)

  However, often enough when a person commits [infidelity], they're so far gone that when they appear before the Judicial Committee, its unlikely they'll show remorse.... I don't think [infidelity] leading to divorce automatically leads to a DFing. I can see a [reproof] depending on the extenuating circumstances and the defendant's attitude toward the whole thing.

  There is no due process of law and no defendants in God's organization. There is nothing automatic about disfellowshipping someone, for the purpose of the Judicial Committee is to determine whether there is repentance on the part of the one that has committed this serious offense against God and against his own body (the guilty spouse is guilty because he or she became "one flesh" with a third party when already "one flesh" with his or her mate). There may be extenuating circumstances, but the disposition (or attitude) of the guilty spouse will often dictate what the Committee decides, and it may take time to sort out the matter if the third party should be another brother or another sister and that brother or sister is also "one flesh" with someone else!

  Also, the decision made by one Committee might seem more harsh than a similar decision made by another Committee for the dynamic in one Committee will often be different in another Committee (e.g., one brother of advanced years may seem to take umbrage over the guilty spouse's conduct, while another brother might see the matter differently due to unique insight), and disfellowshipping someone that exhibits a lack of repentance isn't an easy thing to do.

  I'm waiting to read @elderelite's response to my question to him as to whether he had ever given counsel to married couples frustrated over the inability of one or the other of them to produce children where in vitro fertilization or adoption was being considered, and what he advised such couples. If he responds, I suspect his answer to my question would be interesting.

  @djeggnog
• 
  96

  Marital Due and the KS

  by yknot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

  did i miss something?????

  shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @metatron:

  Unwritten solution: get your wife really angry at you, then do a prostitute, then immediately tell her and have her explode. Then, quickly confess everything to an elder and cry about how sorry you are and how your wife doesn't forgive you. Result: they reprove you and you are scripturally free to divorce.

  You think? Either party to a marriage is free to divorce their mate. Specifically, Jesus stated that "everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery." (Matthew 5:32) IOW, should anyone divorce his or her spouse for any reason that doesn't free him or her to remarry -- adultery -- then remarriage is out of the question. However, only the innocent mate would be free to remarry if one should learn, while divorced, that his or her spouse has become guilty of adultery, for the innocent spouse to forgive the guilty ex-spouse his or her adultery since they are now divorced as would have been possible had they merely separated. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11) Only then would the guilty spouse become free to remarry.

  Adultery only occurs when someone already married becomes "one flesh" with someone else, whether he or she be single and whether or not that individual be of the same gender as themselves, or when someone that is not scripturally free to divorce, divorces and marries someone else anyway. (Matthew 19:5, 9)

  Lots of elders know about this and will discreetly go along with it.

  Nonsense.

  @djeggnog