*** Galatians 1:7-10 *** there are certain ones who are causing YOU trouble and wanting to pervert the good news about the Christ. However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed. As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed. Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I seeking to please men? If I were yet pleasing men, I would not be Christs slave.
Wait on....
by Farkel 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Farkel
og,
Here is a brief summary of the society's ever-changing positions on "perverted sexual practices" among consenting married couples.
Oral sex is "perverted," but we can't make any rules about it:
*** w69 12/15 765-8 Questions from Readers ***
We have received quite a number of inquiries from married persons asking about sexual matters, as a result of views that have been widely publicized by worldly sources. These questions have dealt with conjugal acts, birth control, sterilization and abortion. We herein comment on such matters to the extent that we feel authorized to do so.
Marriage stems from a divine source, Jehovah God. It was man's Creator who provided a wife as a complement for Adam. Was this just for platonic companionship, devoid of sexual acts between husband and wife? Not according to the Bible. It says that God instructed the first pair: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth."-Gen. 1:28.
This helps us to see how Jehovah himself looks at marriage. It has as a primary purpose reproduction or childbearing. (Gen. 1:28; 2:18) This was not to be accomplished by parthenogenesis, the development of an egg without fertilization. Rather, obeying God's instructions necessitated sexual relations or conjugal acts between the man and his wife. Thus, such chaste and pleasurable intimacy ought not be viewed as wrong or ignoble. It is honorable and sacred, a means to transmit human life. The Bible plainly shows, though, that among Christians intercourse must be restricted to between a husband and his wife. The Creator condemns sexual relations outside of this sphere: "God will judge fornicators and adulterers."-Heb. 13:4.
Nonetheless, knowing that marital relations also serve to satisfy passionate desires, some persons have asked about certain sexual practices. We have been obliged to respond that it is not the place of outsiders to dictate to a married couple as to what they will do in this intimate aspect of their marriage.
The male and female sex organs were provided by God to be used in fulfilling the noble assignment to be "fruitful and become many." We need not describe how these organs cooperate to that end. Their design is quite apparent. Married persons recognize the obvious way in which the husband's organ fits into his wife's birth canal to serve the serious purpose of reproduction.
Some have contended, however, that absolutely anything done between husband and wife is permissible. However, that view is not supported in the Bible. In Romans 1:24-32, where it speaks of both men and women who participated in immoral sex practices, including lesbian and sodomite acts, the Bible mentions a "natural use of the female." Thus it shows that to indulge in such perverted use of the reproductive organs so as to satisfy a covetous desire for sexual excitement is not approved by God. This would also be true in connection with married couples; they should not pervert this "natural use of the female." In many places even the law of the land backs this up, making certain acts between husband and wife illegal. For example, speaking about the United States, Time of August 8, 1969, observed: "Sodomy is illegal in nearly every state, even between spouses." (Those who have not learned how such perversions are practiced ought to be grateful for that, for Jehovah God urges Christians to "be babes as to badness."-1 Cor. 14:20.)
In view of their mutual needs marital relations are a way for husband and wife to express tender love and deep affection for each other. Would it be consistent with that selfishly to ask one's mate to share in a degradation of the reproductive organs, acting in a way that the mate found to be repulsive, just so as to gratify one's own senses? Would that be the tender, loving course? No sane person would abuse his or her own human body, or force upon it a practice that was revolting. The Scriptures speak of husband and wife as one flesh. (Eph. 5:28-31) So would a sane and loving husband or wife request sex acts that the other mate rightly regarded as unnatural and disgusting? Obviously authority over the body of one's mate is not unlimited or unaffected by Bible principles.-1 Cor. 7:1-5; Prov. 5:15-19.
Sometimes individuals feel that self-control as to sex is necessary for a single person but that once one is married it is not needed. This view, however, is not correct. Self-control is a fruit of the spirit and it should be manifested in all of one's dealings. (Gal. 5:22, 23) The fact that usually the male has the greater sexual desire suggests that he display a greater measure of self-control, even though his wife lovingly wants to satisfy him. He should assign her "honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one." (1 Pet. 3:7) And in part he can do this by recognizing that her sexual nature is different from his. Dwelling with her "according to knowledge," he ought not think only of quickly satisfying himself however and whenever he wants, but he should be considerate of her both physically and emotionally.
However, beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go. With love, respect and unselfishness, marriage mates themselves must decide what they will do. They can keep in mind the importance of self-control and that "there is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving."-Acts 20:35.
You will be punished severely for engaging in this practice:
*** w75 1/15 48 Insight on the News ***
Unnatural Sexual Relations
Over two years ago this magazine warned against perverted sex practices such as oral and anal copulation, pointing out that, like homosexuality, these were "contrary to nature." The Christian apostle Paul says that those practicing unnatural sexual acts 'receive in themselves the full recompense due for their error.'-Rom. 1:21-27.
This is the softest stance the society has taken on the subject in the last 35 years or so:
*** w78 2/15 30-1 Questions from Readers ***
Beyond these basic guidelines the Scriptures do not go and, hence, we cannot do more than counsel in harmony with what the Bible does say. In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship.
A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. Of course, if any person chooses to approach an elder for counsel he or she may do so and the elder can consider Scriptural principles with such a one, acting as a shepherd but not attempting to, in effect, "police" the marital life of the one inquiring.
This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. It also expresses confidence in the desire of Jehovah's people as a whole to do all things as unto him and to reflect his splendid qualities in all their affairs. It expresses a willingness to leave the judgment of such intimate marital matters in the hands of Jehovah God and his Son, who have the wisdom and knowledge of all circumstances necessary to render the right decisions. It is good for us to remember that "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God" and that "each of us will render an account for himself to God." (Rom. 14:7-10, 12) "We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each one may get his award for the things done through the body, according to the things he has practiced, whether it is good or vile."-2 Cor. 5:10.
This is a more "hardline" stance that shows the society is literally clueless about what is right and what is wrong in the bedroom among consenting spouses.
*** w83 3/15 30-1 Honor Godly Marriage! ***
Married Christians
How about sexual activity between married couples within the marriage bond? It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. However, the Bible certainly enters into their lives. Those who would "keep walking by spirit" should not ignore the Scriptural indications of God's thinking. And they will do well to cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices. Married couples should act in a way that will leave them with a clean conscience, as they give unimpeded attention to developing "the fruitage of the spirit."-Galatians 5:16, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:3-5.
What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate's enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage. Even though a believing mate is distressed by the situation, yet that one's endeavor to hold to Scriptural principles will result in a blessing from Jehovah. In such cases it may be helpful for the couple to discuss the problem frankly, bearing in mind especially that sexual relations should be honorable, wholesome, an expression of tender love. This certainly should exclude anything that might distress or harm one's mate.-Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7.
As already stated, it is not for elders to "police" the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. 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?
Galatians 5:19-21 lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to one's being disqualified from God's 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.
All of Jehovah's people, whether married or single, should shun every kind of immorality. They should give loyal support to all of Jehovah's arrangements, including the institution of marriage. (Psalm 18:21-25) Those who are married should, as "one flesh," endeavor to honor Jehovah, cultivating true love and respect in their marriage. (Genesis 2:23, 24; Ephesians 5:33; Colossians 3:18, 19) In this way, as in other ways, they can show that they are "no part of the world"-a world that Satan has dragged into a mire of immorality and corruption and that is about to 'pass away with its desire.' Remembering that "he that does the will of God remains forever," all should strive to do God's "will" in relation to His precious arrangement of marriage.-John 17:16; 1 John 2:17.
Farkel
-
Dismembered
Hi Farkel,
Always thought the same about those "back door words", how about this one, "You brothers do not know all the details, it's in Jehovahs hands now". What BS
-
Farkel
somebody,
: Guess what Michal's punishment was for being a "slave-girl" who showed "sarasm"?
If death is the "Theocratically Approved(tm)" punishment for sarcasm then if the WTS had its way I would be: poisoned, shot, hung, strangled, drowned, set on fire, stabbed, gassed, bombed, stoned, emasculated, beheaded, disembowled, and put in a blender set to "puree" and only after that would they REALLY start their punishments on me.
I still say, "To HELL with them!"
Farkel
-
Mac
Could sarcasm be the unforgivable sin?
-
zev
gwen,
in answer to your question..
Care to guess what vulpine example the WBTS used for those who do not "wait on Jehovah"/keep supporting them? anyone?
she was "barron" and unable to have children, ever.
another words....no more fertile mertile
-
jgnat
Thanks, Farkel
Zev, about David "Waiting on Jehovah". He was not so impractical that his faith in Jehovah that it stopped him from "heading for the hills". David had no intention of waiting on Jehovah until his head was lopped off. And, by the way, he managed to pick up a whole band of rebels and discontents while he was wandering around in the wilderness.
Sound familiar?
-
Farkel
: she was "barron" and unable to have children, ever.
That "Jehovah" character just loves to mess with people and their bodies and their genes. He messed up our genes after Eden and then messed up animal genes after the Noachian Flood. He made simple straw-eating mosquitos into blood-eaters, and simple straw-eating lions into predators. He took those poor lions who had cloven-hoofs and gave them CLAWS and sharp teeth!
If any God could be described as a "God Who Messes Up Genes(tm)," that "Jehovah" God wins hands-down.
I'm surprised that people exist who actually believe all this bullshit.
Farkel
-
og
Thanks for the cogent reply, Fark. I guess a simple "Oral sex is good; go do some right now" was too much to hope for.
-
LDH
Married persons recognize the obvious way in which the husband's organ fits into his wife's birth canal to serve the serious purpose of reproduction.
LOL. What a dumb ass argument. I couldn't resist, Farkel. Sorry for derailing your thread. I like the way a woman's pu$$y is renamed a "birth canal," as though that is the only purpose. I suppose the words "penis" and "vagina" would have been too scandalous to print.
Then again, ain't this the GB? How the #*$& would they know *WHERE* the husband's "organ" fits, never having had sex.
LOL.
Lisa
(PS ZEV you are too much. Gwen, I am almost finished with that article. I will email it to you before I post it for your input.)