Renia Renia Reniaa...
You simply keep getting your a$$ kicked again and again on JWD.... then run away MANY TIMES .... and then come back again on another subject altogether and get your a$$ kicked again.
Reniaa, the on ly thing your posting here does for me, is make me wonder why I did not leave Watchtower SOONER.
And Reniaa, you ran away from all these threads (and more):
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/173883/9/Jesus-not-crucified-on-torture-stake-Impossible
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/173978/2/WHY-cant-Jehovah-REINSTATE-Satan
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/158368/2/E-mail-to-JW-Ex-Wife-What-You-Can-Learn-Researching-the-WTS-in-3-Hours
What happened Reniaa? You have many questions you ran away from for over ONE YEAR NOW.
Boy, defending all that Watchtower nonsense sure must be one tough deal if Reniaa has to keep pulling her disappearing acts.
But now Reniaa says oral sex is okay for JW's. That oral sex is a conscience matter. But when the printed page is plastered all over her forehead both her and Pilchard now say it only means that JW's who FORCE these things on others are being counseled.
Man, Reniaa you sure should try running for politics one day. Cause you sure like twisting and flipping what was actually said to make some Watchtower point fit your sorry claim.
The problem Reniaa, is that you are not dealing with some green, wet behind the ears bible studies here on JWD. Not here you ain't.
WE HAVE ALL BEEN THERE AND DONE THE JW DEAL ALREADY.
We KNOW how it works Reniaa. Which is why you keep getting your A$$ kicked too many times to count now.
Porr little Reniaa and Pilchard want to try telling us oral sex is okay between two JW's.
My reply:
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What a hoot! Poor little JW's Reniaa and Pitchard don't even know what WT teaches. Hey Reniaa, it's pretty sad when EX-JW's gotta teach you JW policies.
So then let's take another LOOK:
Reniaa Writes:
"I think the point has been made clearly now that both the 78 wt and the 83 wt agree that this is something between a man and wife and not something elders would get involved in normally".
**** But what does 83 WT say?
"However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is PRACTICING or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation."
**** The Watchtower says if any JW is, " PRACTICING or OPENLY ADVOCATING", these what they call "Perveted Sex Relations" that they are not being irreprehensible. It does not qualify this with if any "JW FORCES THESE SEX ACTS" etc on others.
In fact, simply by referring to oral and anal sex as, "perverted sex relations" , right there, anybody with half a brain can see Watchtower forbids these practices.
Why else would Watchtower call them "perverted"? Hello.. Earth to Reniaa and Pilchard.... Come in Reniaa and Pilchard.
Here is what Pilchard says:
First Pilchard quotes the 83 WT :.."However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation. Why?"
Then Pilchard replies to 83 Watchtower quote:
"Now here the 1983 article CLEARLY states that private marital matters are NOT to be policed. It mentions the possibility of expulsion. But NOT expulsion for what one simply practices but for PROMOTING such practices among the congregation."
**** WRONG Pilchard! Where are your glasses Pilchard?
Did you not see the word OR in that sentence?
Here, let me re-quote that 83 WT for you with a little emphasis on the key word you seemed to miss:
83 WT: "However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation. Why?"
**** You see Pilchard, like Reniaa is just flat wrong once again. (Nothing new here folks). Which is why none of us go running back to Watchtower world even though Reniaa's posts are all over the JWD...
That sentence has a completely different meaning with the word OR.
In other words then:
If anybody is practicing these perverted sex practices they would, "certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for specialprivileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation."
OR:
If anybody is "openly advocating perverted sex practices" they would, "certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for specialprivileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation."
**** Clearly you can see Watchtower means in either case, that of PRACTICING OR ADVOCATING IS WRONG.
It was changed in 1978 from a dogmatic position of no oral sex in 1974, to a less dogmatic view of being more or less up the the conscience of the marriage mates in the 78 article, AND THEN BACK TO THE PRIOR DOGMATIC VIEW ONCE AGAIN WHERE IT STANDS TODAY. What part of this JW teaching does Reniaa or Pilchard not yet get? You see, the more you learn about WT world the more you are in for some surprises. Oral Sex is a NO. That is the bottom line here. I was an elder on a judicial commitee where we disciplined a brother for making out, while intoxicated, with someone other than his wife. He then also confessed to us to having oral sex with his wife. He was disciplined, Private Reproof, for BOTH. The WT says oral sex is a NO. This is not a gray or conscience matter. It is a red flag NO. As long as you stop doing it you are probably fine. Tell your elders that you and spouse like oral sex and that "it will continue to be a part of your romance" and see what happens. Go ahead, try it and report back TO US HERE Reniaa and Pilchard. The bible covers all kinds of sexual things under the sun in the law covenant. But where is there anything said about oral sex? The answer: NOWHERE. Would not the Creator of heaven and earth have said SOMETHING if He considered that personal act between two people offensive and ungodly? It's just more control folks. Wishy-washy, blinking light, inconsistent control . The fact that the WT CHANGED POLICIES from 74 to 78 and then again in 83, right there, proves God is sure not the one behind any of this nonsesne. Yep folks, the Governing Body is even in the JW BEDROOM today. How about that! Amazing things we learn every day. But there is more! To show Reniaa and Pilchard that I am not blowing smoke, (like they are), here is more writing from WT world itself. From Kingdom Ministry School Textbook (1981) p.151: "Sexual Conduct concerning the marriage bed, individuals can, however, be advised that in their intimate relations, as in all other aspects of Christian life, they need to have a hatred for all perverted practices including homosexuality, bestiality, oral sex and the like (Lev. 18:22,23; Ps. 97:10; Amos 5:15; Rom. 12:9; Eph. 5:3,10-12; Col. 3:5,6) Persons should be urged to act in such a way as to leave them with a clean conscience, and the marriage bed undefiled. (Heb. 13:4)" In black and white print folks! Oral sex is a big fat NO! From the "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock", (Elders Manual), p.142 Each one should have a hatred for all perverted sexual practices. (Lev. 18:22, 23; Ps. 97:10; Amos 5:15; Rom. 12:9; Eph. 5:3, 10-12; Col. 3:5, 6). Persons should be urged to act in such a way as to maintain a clean conscience, and the marriage bed should be undefiled. (Heb. 13 :4; w83 3/15 pp. 27-31). While perverted practices are wrong, if within a marriage one is involved or has been involved in such, it does not mean that he or she would necessarily lose service privileges. If such conduct becomes known to the elders, they would need to consider: Is the practice recent or ongoing, or is it something that occurred in the past and is definitely conquered? Is the individual promoting such conduct as a proper life-style? Is his attitude one of remorse? If he is sincerely repentant and the situation is not generally known, it may not be necessary to remove privileges of service. (NOW NOTICE THIS NEXT SENTENCE) (((Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation. Why?))) Galatians 5:19-21 lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to ones being disqualified from Gods Kingdom. Among them are "uncleanness" (Greek, akatharsia, signifying filthiness, depravity, lewdness) and "loose conduct" (Greek, aselgeia, signifying licentiousness, wantonness, shameless conduct). Like porneia, these vices, when they become gross, can be grounds for disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation, but not for obtaining a Scriptural divorce. A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. Of course, a person with that attitude might even sink to committing porneia; then there would be a basis for a Scriptural divorce. How concerned all devoted Christians should be to avoid and war against all such "works of the flesh"!Galatians 5:24, 25. [Footnotes] See The Watchtower of November 15, 1979, pages 31 and 32; also, September 15, 1980, page 31. This is an amplification and ((((adjustment)))) in understanding of what appears in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, pages 703-704, and of February 15, 1978, pages 30-32. Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mates perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried. (End of article.) ***** Now Reniaa and Pilchard, did you Notice the, "IF HE IS REPENTANT", IF HE HAS CONQUERED THE PRACTICE, IF IT IS NOT ONGOING" instructions to the elders. Notice the, "this is an adjustment to the 1978 article". Notice the, "Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation" line. If you are not repentant or if you continue to practice or advocate what WT says NO to (INCLUDING ORAL SEX), then you will be OUT. So Reniaa and Pitchard, please do your homework before counseling us here on JWD. There will be less crow to eat. I see so many times where JW's get BURIED in these debates so thoroughly that you would need an earthquake or at least very heavy machinery to dig them out. Over and over again this is what happens here. Yet what makes them cling for dear life to the same organization responsible for all these sorry teachings that get them so completely buried in the debates? This is a mystery to many EX-JW's. What the simple FACTS show however is that the more reasonable, less dogmatic 1978 viewpoint is the one that actually went KAPUT. And this is PROVEN WITH THE WT PRINTED PAGE. So, does it make any difference to Reniaa and Philchard that the BOYS IN BROOKLYN are back inside the JW bedroom today? Telling JW's what is right and wrong for them between two married people. Telling them it is wrong to do things that God Himself never said. Though God sure could have said JUST THAT, since God sure did say many things regarding sexual things all over the bible. But nothing on Oral Sex, which if Reniaa or Pilchard keep on doing and elders find out about will be DISFELLOWSHIPPED OUT! THE PRINTED PAGE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. I've said many times that the Watchtower's greatest enemy today is its very own writings! Vinny
