Watchtower and sex

by claudia 29 Replies latest jw friends

Thirdson

Frenchy,
Secondly, many things can be classed as sin but not all sins are viewed as equal in God's eyes.
I am glad you don't equate fornication with murder. Sex is a normal human activity. The Bible condemned fornicators to death except unmarried persons who were obliged to get married. Would you want to to return to secular law like in certain Muslim countries? If not, do you think the WTS policy of condenming people to death without carrying out the action any different?
The WTS cannot or will not fomulate rules that put sinful sexual activity in perspective. But then again the WTS creates hardline ill-conceived laws regarding sex practices between married persons and legislates on form of birth control.
Thirdson
'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'
mommy

Hey Claudia
As a side note, my brother was df'd for drunkeness. He was 19 and coming home from an elders house and got a DWI. The elder told him not to worry that everything would be ok. My mother convinced my brother he had a problem, and went to counseling. When my brother went to the JC he presented facts from his counselor that he was an alchoholic and was being treated for it. No tears were shed for him, actually I think the DF was a muzzle for the elder that provided the beer for him. Yep no action taken against the elder that supported the underage drinkers and then let them drive home. Even in the "real" world a homeowner would be responsible for letting the guests leave drunk.
So you see it is not who you know but how high up they are in org
wendy
SixofNine

mommy, that is a disgusting story and it makes elders look like a bunch of yahoos and baffoons. Do you have any more?
Who was it that said "injustice anywhere makes me want to get 'Assyrian' on elders arses everywhere!"?
Frenchy's post brought out some of the delicious (depending on your particular taste irony found in this subject;
Noah and Lot both got drunk on occasions. As far as the record shows, they were not condemned by God for doing so. Their getting drunk on those occasions did not make them drunkards anymore than someone overeating on occasion make them gluttons.
For that matter, Lot wasn't condemned for having sex with his TWO daughters while drunk, either.
As far as the outcome of Noahs li'l binge, lets save that for another thread.... perhaps the "Should You Believe the Bible?" thread.
Frenchy, your post would seem to indicate that you think getting drunk, or overeating occasionally would not make one a drunkard or glutton. By ommission, you seemed to be saying that fornicating on occasion definately makes one a fornicator.
Why is it different?
It is interesting that for a man to be df'd in the first century congregation, he had to be having sex with his step-mother. But not just having sex, having a relationship w/her, out in front of the community, AND, refusing to stop that relationship. At least that is my read.
He was reinstated 6 months later, along w/words that indicated "wow, we were harsh here, lets not be too harsh".
I guess my take on it, Frenchy, is that if the "devil" would really try to apply the Bible (which as you know, I am not sure I even believe anymore) in the most loving way possible, then, yeah, I would be happy to "give the devil his due". The devil doesn't, so I don't.
Oh yeah, back to delicious irony. No one, that I am aware of anyway, has any inate, God given even, craving or desire for alcohol. But a boy raised by wolves would no doubt spend his time in a liquor store ignoring the liquor while doing just plain wrong things with the playboy magazines. (wolf boys have no sense of privacy)
But wait, the irony gets even more delicious. If we agree that the sexual urge is inate and God given, then we also understand that we all get it in various amounts.
This one is rich; I know of a situation where three elders, none of whom I really know, so I can only imagine they have fairly "normal" amounts of the male sex drive (which is to say,high amounts), had the honor of sitting in judgement of a repentant woman (who I know very well) whose sex drive at any point in her life has been stronger than that of any 3 males combined. She was in a marriage for seven years with a man she was not in love with, not emotionally attracted to, and just plain did not like. She wanted sex with him at least once a day, sometimes 3 times or more.
Since she had been in trouble before, they didn't crack a bible in the race to disfellowship.
She is now working toward being reinstated, and views those non-bible-using elders as part of Gods arrangement. When she tearfully came to me for help in arranging her thoughts, and quotes from the literature for an appeal, she genuinly appreciated my assistance. But since it didn't work, obviously, she wasn't repentant, even though she was repentant, and I am prideful and have a bad attitude. ????how does that work again?/?/. Oh yeah, we are in WT land, God doesn't want anything to make sense.
And there Claudia, is your answer.
Frenchy

Thirdson:
Sex is a normal human activity.
Agreed. Fornication is not overindulgence in legitimate sex. The subject is fornication.
Would you want to to return to secular law like in certain Muslim countries?
That’s not the subject either. I’m addressing claudia’s question at the beginning of this thread.
If not, do you think the WTS policy of condenming people to death without carrying out the action any different?
I see an enormous difference. But I am not here (or anywhere else) advocating disfellowshipping according the WT practice for ANY practice.
… again the WTS creates hardline ill-conceived laws regarding sex practices between married persons and…
None of this has anything to do with fornication which is the subject that I addressed. I don’t mind discussing this particular subject but this is not what we were talking about and has no place in the form of a reply.
Six:
For that matter, Lot wasn't condemned for having sex with his TWO daughters while drunk, either.
True. There is a lot more to that account than first meets the eye. Was this simply a case of satisfying lust, of fornication? That’s the subject I was addressing.
Frenchy, your post would seem to indicate that you think getting drunk, or overeating occasionally would not make one a drunkard or glutton.
I think I said as much. Quote: “Their getting drunk on those occasions did not make them drunkards anymore than someone overeating on occasion make them gluttons.”
By ommission, you seemed to be saying that fornicating on occasion definately makes one a fornicator.
My answer to this is yes. Just like murdering only once makes one a murderer, raping only once makes one a rapist, etc. let alone ‘on occasion’. Gluttony and drunkenness are excess of perfectly legitimate activities. Fornication is not.
It is interesting that for a man to be df'd in the first century congregation, he had to be having sex with his step-mother. But not just having sex, having a relationship w/her, out in front of the community, AND, refusing to stop that relationship. At least that is my read.
He was reinstated 6 months later, along w/words that indicated "wow, we were harsh here, lets not be too harsh".
As you noted that is YOUR evaluation of the events recorded there and, of course, we are all entitled to our evaluations or reads. As it happens I view that episode in a different light.
On giving the devil his due, I will credit someone with having it right whether I like that person or not. I served with an elder once that was a very obstinate and difficult man. He was plain mean. He never missed an opportunity to disagree with me and caused me no end of anguish. There were times, however, when he and I agreed on certain things. When he was right, I backed him. When he thought I was right he backed me. I didn’t like him even when he was right but my personal opinion of the man did not make what was right wrong just because it came from him. No one is wrong all the time. No one is right all the time.
Your wolf-boy thing is lost on me. I haven’t a clue as to what your point is on this. As for your scenario about the overly sexed lady and the JC, I’m afraid there are simply too many details lacking for me to make any comments about the matter. I don’t know what your point on this is either. Sorry.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
Frenchy

CAUTION: PERSONAL VIEW
This is my personal view on FORNICATION. I am not here pushing this view nor am I condemning those that have a different viewpoint but I feel that I must state it so there is no misunderstanding about where I am coming from. I do not apologize for my view on this either.
I believe that sex should be limited to the husband and wife relationship. I don’t believe that a man or a woman should go outside the marriage for sex. In this case the fornication is adultery. I do not believe that unmarried people should engage in sexual activity. To me this is a very intimate thing and I do not equate it with shaking hands, hugging, or even kissing. I personally think that sex should be exclusively an expression of the deep love that two people have for each other. It should not be engaged in with out a deep and abiding commitment of the two parties to each other. I take it very, very personal.
Can two people who care very much about each other, while in the stages of learning each other in an effort to decide if they want to spend their live together perhaps get carried away and engage in sex? Yes, it happens all the time. If it was not planned, if it was something which happened in a moment of passion and weakness and if there is a resolve to keep it from happening again then while those individuals did sin by fornicating I would not call them fornicators in the sense of being practicers of it.
If a person chooses to practice fornication then that is between them and God and I have no inclination to taunt them let alone punish them. I’ve seen so much badness and heartache come from that.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
Thirdson

Frenchy,
I know this is your personal view but you recognize the uniqueness of this sin:
Can two people who care very much about each other, while in the stages of learning each other in an effort to decide if they want to spend their live together perhaps get carried away and engage in sex? Yes, it happens all the time. If it was not planned, if it was something which happened in a moment of passion and weakness and if there is a resolve to keep it from happening again then while those individuals did sin by fornicating I would not call them fornicators in the sense of being practicers of it.
I’ll reiterate that sex is a normal human act. Signing a little bit of paper makes a big difference to this sin. The same feelings and passions are there but that little slip of paper makes the difference between a happily married person and a "fornicator". You can’t get a slip of paper to commit theft or murder. (I am not talking about adultery which is a crime against one’s chosen mate) The whole point of this thread is the way the WTS makes sex/fornication the number one crime yet sex is a basic human need and desire. Secular law long ago gave up criminalizing sex between consenting adults. Yet the number 1 reason for getting kicked out of the WTS is fornication. Other acts that may be criminal in nature seem to get covered up. I’ve seen what goes on in elder bodies and what gets treated lightly (falsely claiming social security etc.) yet a young girl confesses to sex and see how quickly the JC is formed.
Claudia is right in her viewpoint (my opinion). My other statements that you took exception to are in keeping with the theme of this board, the JW perspective and analysis of Watchtower practices. The subject of sex is such a JW passion and fraught with puritanical ideas that it stills causes a flurry of posts as can been in this topic.
Just my observations.
Thirdson
'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'
Edited by - Thirdson on 6 March 2001 14:2:45
SixofNine

Frenchy, about "drunkard" or, "glutton", as opposed to "murder" or "rapist", I tend to agree with you. Hesitatingly. "Fornicator" is a little more complex, as I think reasonable people would see it falling (even if they think it is wrong) far closer to drunkeness or gluttony than murder or rape on the sin scale.
In fact, some people who at least on the surface seem reasonable, don't consider it to be a sin at all anymore.
As a parent, I have a vested interest in getting this all figured out before too many years go by.
Still, it is interesting isn't it, the wording? "On occassion" one can indulge in getting drunk, "on occassion" one can overeat, and still not be considered a drunkard or glutton.
Gluttony and drunkenness are excess of perfectly legitimate activities. Fornication is not.

That is where it gets interesting. There is so much that can be said on this particular issue. Sex is certainly a perfectly legitimate activity. It is as basic to human life as eating, and far more basic than drinking. If you believe some of the bible as gospel, you will think that sex should only happen between married men and women. Of course, if you believe all of the Bible, you will also be confused as to why it was just fine for men to have multiple wives and concubines (sometimes into the hundreds)- - Seemingly God sanctioned fornication and adultry. (please, no one come in here and try to play with words about this. It is not a subject I feel like suffering fools lightly about, because it is not a light subject.)
Seems like it is time to figure out, "Should You Believe the Bible?" Your comments here:
[url] http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3085&site=3[/url]
Ps. Frenchy, I think we are on the same page about the devil and his due. Your original post seems to be confined, in that regard, to the way the congregations generally handle drunkeness and gluttony (not fornication)?
Edited by - SixofNine on 6 March 2001 14:13:44
unanswered

first, i have to agree with mommy on this one.
"So you see it is not who you know but how high up they are in org"
when i was 19 and 20 i was friends with a jw girl my age. regularly i would go to her house and hang out with her family and their friends. on many such occasions we had a few beers given to us by the parents. they knew i was not of legal age, and even when elders were there it was never a problem. however, when it came out that i drank with other witness friends, i was accused of having a drinking problem.
now i realize that one situation was under adult supervision and one was not, but, how come i only had a drinking problem when i was away from that supervision? i'm not defending my drinking as a minor-i'm sure i won't want my kids doing that, i just think that it's the double standards that really get a lot of us fired up, not always the principles.
frenchy-once again i've enjoyed your balanced opinion. you always seem to remember and allow for our humanity when discussing these kinds of topics.
peaceloveharmony

six,
In fact, some people who at least on the surface seem reasonable, don't consider it to be a sin at all anymore.
i'm one of these reasonable people
I think the "sin" of fornication is an outdated form of control religious groups and parents use.
just my 2 cents
harmony
Edited by - peaceloveharmony on 6 March 2001 15:8:24
Frenchy

Thirdson:
Signing a little bit of paper makes a big difference to this sin. The same feelings and passions are there but that little slip of paper makes the difference between a happily married person and a "fornicator"
I don’t want to be unduly argumentative here but it’s more than a ‘slip of paper’. I just don’t view sex as entertainment.
I agree that there is a lot of emphasis put on fornication, perhaps more than on some of the other sins.
Six:
I think reasonable people would see it falling (even if they think it is wrong) far closer to drunkeness or gluttony than murder or rape on the sin scale.
I agree with that as would any sensible person. I cannot for the life of me see how even a habitual fornicator could be equated to a murderer or rapist in the damage that is done. I hope that is not the impression that I gave.
I think we are on the same page about the devil and his due. Your original post seems to be confined, in that regard, to the way the congregations generally handle drunkeness and gluttony (not fornication)?
Are you asking a question here?
I don’t want to appear to be taking an extremist viewpoint here because I am aware that there are some unusual circumstances that exist. The Society does not recognize these circumstances and treats these people all the same. I do not agree with that.
Unanswered:
frenchy-once again i've enjoyed your balanced opinion. you always seem to remember and allow for our humanity when discussing these kinds of topics.
Thank you.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Watchtower and sex

Share this