QFR..Feb 15 2010. RE Shared Living Accommodation?? (page 3)

minimus

They're OBSESSED by sex.

Basically, if you have a living arrangement where you have people share expenses, it's a no-no. If they simply pay rent to enjoy living in a house, that's wrong IF sex COULD POSSIBLY occur.

Finally-Free

"It would likewise be inappropriate for those divorced from each other to continue living in the same house. Their being accustomed to intimate relations with each other could readily lead to immoral conduct."

Ha ha! What a joke. We didn't f*ck for the last 11 years of our marriage. Why would we start now?

zombie dub

What if two people who are not married to each other unexpectedly find themselves alone together because others who would normally be present are momentarily absent?

Ummm, I dunno, what if? Do they make a cup of tea? Watch TV? Listen to music? I guess they could do anything or maybe just not even do anything together but just get on with their seperate lives as most housemates do.

Oh wait, duh, I just realised the answer - of course!

THEY FUCK EACH OTHER SENSELESS!!!!

creativhoney

sounds fun to me ZOmb. fancy renting a house? ;)

creativhoney

if people are gonna do it they will find a way regardless of where they live and who they live with. people have been being tempted by sex since sex began, they need to get over it.

undercover

There was another thread about this but it didn't have the actual article scanned, so thanx BB...

This was my comment on the previous thread:

I got to thinking about the current economic crisis and how that has caused some people to come to the aid of family and friends who are suffering...

On more than one occasion my wife and I have opened our home to people who needed temporary housing while either out of work, rebuilding a destroyed home or who were relocating from another area and hadn't closed on a new house yet.

In all instances, there were always times that me or my wife were home alone with members of the opposite sex who we were not married to. I've been home alone...overnight even, when my wife was gone and the husband of the family we were putting up was gone, leaving me alone with another woman in the house. My sister-in-law, young and single, lived with us for several months. There were lots of occasions where we were alone.

What really stands out to me about this is that what most people would consider Christian charity...opening your home to those in need and giving them shelter...is discouraged and counseled against by a corporation who is so worried about keeping its reputation squeeky clean that it forgets exactly what it means to be charitable, hospitable and a Christian.

Bastards, the lot of em...

But, OTOH...I just thought of this, heh heh heh... If you've got non-immediate family living with you and you've been itching for them to move out, the Society just gave you Jah's blessing to kick em out.

"So sorry, guys...we really hate to kick you out but the Society says this is a bad arrangement. You know none of us want to grieve the Holy Spirit by ignoring counsel from the brothers, right?"

sd-7

First of all, it is the business of Jehovah's organization to make rules about this. After all, the 'other sheep' are the 'belongings' that Christ has entrusted to the faithful slave. That being said, why not make rules about it?

Second, for Christians who are interested in being reasonably cautious, the logic in this article is pretty sound. Why put yourself in a position to sin? And while in many Western communities, an unmarried couple living together is no big deal, elsewhere that may not be the case. It is logical to be careful not to stumble anyone.

As for a bunch of mixed-gender unmarried folks living in the same place, well, if you're a JW, this ain't The Real World, okay? So it doesn't make sense to put oneself in that position. Clearly there is no scripture forbidding it, but it would pose a real danger, like it or not.

As for divorced couples, it seems logical to assume they mean scripturally divorced individuals--this could probably be extended to those who are unscripturally divorced too, because they would need to legally remarry for the sake of appearances. While that may seem harsh, it is logical. I don't see a need to make it into a judicial issue if a couple that wasn't scripturally divorced did something, so long as they were exclusive with each other. But for appearances, they would need to get remarried legally. That's how the machine works.

Love 'em or hate 'em, when it comes to this moral issue, I think this article makes some good points, at least for Christians. I know I'll get maligned for saying it. But that's how I feel. There are good things in this religion, even despite its evils. Can't say that makes for an easy time in a world that's so gray, including the organization itself, mind you, but it's wise counsel.

SD-7

HappyGuy

What if two people who are not married to each other unexpectedly find themselves alone together because others who would normally be present are momentarily absent?

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with someone who would write this kind of nonsense.

SERIOUSLY, just because I mometarily find myself alone with a person of the opposite sex I am going to become a sex crazed animal and just jump on the poor woman? SERIOUSLY??????

My wife and I open our house to people all the time. Our main concern is always how can we give them a safe, peaceful, tranquil, loving refuge for the short time they are going to be here.

My wife is a lot younger than I am and her friends are also a lot younger. NEVER have I been alone with one of my wife's friends and thought about her in any way other than as if she was my daughter or sister.

The senile octaganerians must sit around all day obsessing with sex. That is the only way I can understand why they harp on immorality in such ridiculous scenarios.

sd-7

I would add, however, that undercover makes very good points. Circumstances may require a bunch of folks to live together in one place. That's what I meant about the world being gray. We can't always have ideal circumstances. That being said, while the guidelines here are logical, there ought to be plenty of leeway for unusual circumstances, especially in hard times or for those who struggle to make a living and can't afford to be on their own. People shouldn't be judged if a bunch of unmarried folks chose to live together 'cause it's cheaper.

SD-7

HappyGuy

I'll tell you what really has me upset about this stupid article.

In the beginning when they talk about people living together out of necessity due to financial difficulty, and perhaps this is the only way the person can not be homeless.

I was very active in the quick build program. I was the lead carpenter on more than 1 quick build. I also did painting and wallpaper and drywall.

Anyway, with the societies financial resources and with people trained in the quick build program, the society could EASILY set up a quick build program for brothers and sisters in desparate need. Not a welfare program, but similar to habitat for humanity, only use the quick build approach. Not only could the society do this but they could do it without it costing them any money.

I recommended this for a few hardship cases when I was active in the quick build program and not only did the "brothers" reject the idea, they got upset because I woudlnt' take no for an answer.

If the society was truly concerned about brothers and sisters being so down and out that they have to live in a "dangerous" situation then they could easily provide a practical solution.

Gawd I hate those bastards.

QFR..Feb 15 2010. RE Shared Living Accommodation??

Share this