Most JW women are adulterers

by Faraon 55 Replies latest jw friends

JT

yes the point about men is so true - when you consider how an elder, co and bethelite would cut his wife short in behalf of the org is amazing
a conversation i had with Dan Sydlick back in 1988 when i got my letter telling me that my wife and i would not be accepted at bethel
he told me it might be a good thing, he talked about how many sisters at bethel would come into his office wanting to leave bethel but due to thier husbands being NEEDED BY THE SOCIETY THEY STAY, but they were not happy
he made this comment: "I wonder how jah feels about a man who sacrifices his wife on the alter of FULL-TIME SERVICE"
looking back at that comment this post just hit me like a ton of bricks
Faraon

Dakota ,
Yes, I understand that males in a male dominated society wrote it. Women did not even have the right to vote in this country. Female teachers were forbidden to marry last century. I learned 30 years ago that women are the biologically stronger sex, surviving man in any illnesses, with the exception of gonococcal infections and whopping cough. I also learned that we males inherit more of our genes from our mothers than our fathers, and that our daughters have half our genes. This makes our daughters more alike to us than our sons.
It has taken science, and women's movements a la Paulo Freire, to free both man and women from the sexist attitude prevailing in the so-called Word of God. Call it Bible, Quoran, or whatever. Years ago, it was almost impossible for a man to gain even partial custody of its offspring. The women's movement has also helped us.
Now you may look at it equally applying to both sexes, but think how it was taken last century, and now in Afghanistan. Women and children were terribly oppressed.
Zeb,
I was going to award you the name change, even though it is not really biblical, but in the minds of the geriatric set.
On the plus side, This is a good case to take to the brain dead, but here are a couple of problems.
1. This does not apply to the second class 'hovers. It would only apply to the first class travelers to heaven, so I could not say "most JW are adulterers"
2. The WT changes doctrine so quickly that they are able to say that a new light came saying that this woman is really our Lady of Guadalupe, and they would pick up membership from the RCC Mexicans.
As for your last comment: "Or, maybe homosexual adulterers", Check the Jan. 1, 1972 p. 31, Questions for the Readers. This new (1972) light states that homosexuality and bestiality are not grounds for divorce.
Mary,
Good points you made though..........can we see you in the back after the meeting to talk to you about your attitute?
I was hoping to illustrate the silliness of the bible in general and 'hovers beliefs in particular. Please read all my comments. And I am truly sorry if I came out with a bad attitude.
This reminded me of my first argument with my first wife. I was so angry I told her I was going to the bar next door to have a beer to cool off. She blocked my exit, carried me in her arms like a nursing baby to our bed, dumped me like a potato sack in bed, and then proceeded to give me an hour lecture on why men abuse women because they are the weaker sex! I was laughing so hard that I even forgot what the original argument was all about.
DakotaRed

Faraon, I totally agree with you about how the world has taken the Bible and misused it. Mostly by strict interpretation. They probably always will, I am afraid. For me, I just state my view and hopefully, some will listen and see the error of their ways.
Unfortuantely, none of the religious books, Bible, Qu'Ran or whatever, are going to go away. It is a tough uphill struggle to get through to people about their views of it, but strides are being made.
I raised my two daughters with nothing more than general views of the Bible, teaching them they could do and be anything they wished. Neither will subordinate themselves to their husbands and both son-in-laws have great respect for their wives.
I sure do wish that more men would realize that the "weaker vessel" isn't really weaker. Maybe physically, on average, but mentally and emotionally, they have us men beat six ways to Sunday. Maybe that is why on average, they live longer.
Lew W
abbagail

Big LOL @ The Alchemist who wrote:
"Jehover's woman has dish pan hands."
Great thread. I learned a lot! The Joseph Malik entries were news to me, and interesting!
Also the post by Mary, I think, which included that info regarding Women Ministers, excellent arguments presented. Being a Joyce Meyer fan, I always wondered how she justified it to herself. And Go Jimmy! (Carter) ;-)
Faraon wrote:
"I also learned that we males inherit more of our genes from our mothers than our fathers, and that our daughters have half our genes. This makes our daughters more alike to us than our sons."
So THAT explains the mystery in my family! Five brothers and they are all more on the "soft side" (like Mom), whereas me and my two sisters are more of the "hard-A**" types like our father.
And Dakota Red, about your kids saying the blessing at meals. I thought that was a great idea - teaches them how to pray in front of others. What's so bad about that? Can't believe the elder whacked you for that one. Ridiculous.
All in all, there do seem to be quite a few contradictory statements in those scriptures that I never noticed before... .
Grits
clash_city_rockers
Faraon, even though your world view is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory thus rendering your judgments on inerrant scripture invalid and inane. I will still give you an answer to the questions posed at the top of your post. Your question are dealt in a Covenantal manor or what we Reformed (Calvinists) call Covenant Theology.
Faraon asks from 1 st Cor.
Who is the head of the woman?
Was the woman created for the congregation or the man?
Would it be adultery for a woman to have sex with the man's boss, or his boss's boss?
Would it be spiritual fornication to bypass the man for an organization?
Answer:
her husband
For her husband
It is not either or it is yes to both
It would be Covenant disobedience. The answer is complex given the nature of the Watchtower and that the WT is not a true Christian community outside from covenant with God. So the best way to put is: A. If she bypasses her husband for a false religion like the WT, then yes it is covenant disobedience to the marriage covenant. B. If she bypasses her husband, that is go to a bible believing Christian church while her pagan unbelieving husband sits at home and watches the Seattle Seahawks get their buts kicked on a regular and weekly basis, then no, she is not in covenant disobedience. She is just living out who she is a Christian. As long as she is obedient to her old man in marriage and her husband does not command her to break Gods Law then every thing is cool. And in either case it is not breaking the 7 th commandment
Im short for time lets deal with this questions first then we will move to the Ephesians passage next and the fallowing questions
Just a little equal time for book advertiesments. I'm sure no one will mind since this Discussion Board has left the narrow minded intolorent ways of the WT.

Super Cheeeeerrrs,
jr
Edited by - clash_city_rockers on 19 August 2002 8:30:2
Edited by - clash_city_rockers on 19 August 2002 8:32:33
Edited by - clash_city_rockers on 19 August 2002 8:33:44
Edited by - clash_city_rockers on 19 August 2002 8:35:5
Faraon

Joseph,
Paul certainly was replying to some doubts from Corinth, but it was not "word for word" as you claimed. Note that in the same verse (1Cor. 11:3) that refers to the headship of man over woman, he claims that it is from his own words that the head of the woman is the man. This is demonstrated by the use of " But I would have you know ". Did this come from the Corinthians?
Maybe it would be of interest to you what I found in the following concerning 1Corinthians 11 at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/smcdownlds/GdWdActs.html
From the Steve McRoberts' site http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/Smcroberts/index.html

1Cor:11:1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Once again Paul asked his readers to be his followers in the same way that Paul was a follower of Christ! No wonder they were saying, "I am of Paul"! But, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Paul was not a very good follower of Christ; he often contradicted Christs teachings.
1Cor:11:3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Paul was describing a hierarchy with God at the top, and women at the bottom . These are not equal relationships. Therefore, God and Jesus are not equal (and therefore the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true).
Since Paul said that "the head of the woman is the man", he held that women are inferior to men (just as men are inferior to Christ). Since Pauls time it has been scientifically proven that women are superior to men in every way. But since both sexes are needed, it is best for society as a whole if women treat men as if they were their equals. How odd that the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, didnt know simple biology and sociology! How odd that the Holy Spirit chose to perpetuate a divisive falsehood created by men!
1Cor:11:4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cor:11:5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cor:11:6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Cor:11:7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cor:11:8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cor:11:9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Cor:11:10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.1Cor:11:11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cor:11:12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
1Cor:11:13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cor:11:14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Cor:11:15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Here Pauls fashion tastes got a hearing in the "Word of God"!
How does "nature" teach that long hair on a man is shameful and long hair on a woman is glorious? I happen to share this particular opinion with Paul, but I admit that it is exactly that: an opinion a personal taste fostered by my culture. In other species we find that it is the male that most often is adorned to attract the female. To take just one example: compare the male peacock with its long tail feathers to what we would consider the "plain" female. If nature teaches us anything, it is the opposite of what Paul claimed.
Had he seen Samson, Paul wouldve thought his looks were "shameful" because he had long hair. Yet the Scriptures associate his long hair with holiness, not shame:

Judg:13:5: For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
This was what God said about men who vowed to be Nazarites:

Num: 6:5: All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
Far from being shameful, God said long hair on a man was a sign of holiness! How bizarre it is that Pauls personal opinions and tastes get palmed off as "the Word of God", especially when they contradict the supposed words of God!
Paul said that man "is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man". How is it that man is the image of God but woman is not? The word "image" implies a visual difference. The visual differences between a man and a woman are sexual. So, based on Pauls words, we are to imagine God as having a penis and scrotum. Now why would God have a penis and scrotum unless he made use of them? There are two functions for a penis, and I find it rather ridiculous to imagine God performing either of them. I guess Christians could point to the Virgin Mary as one example of God putting his member to use, but I think most would find that sacrilegious. Remember: I didnt bring this subject up; Paul did!
Finally, Paul contradicted himself by saying that a woman must cover her head when she prays (or else be shorn in punishment). He also said that long hair serves as a covering. If long hair serves as a covering, what need does a woman have for a second covering?
Edited for color
Edited by - faraon on 19 August 2002 18:30:35
JosephMalik

Joseph,
Paul certainly was replying to some doubts from Corinth, but it was not "word for word" as you claimed. Note that in the same verse (1Cor. 11:3) that refers to the headship of man over woman, he claims that it is from his own words that the head of the woman is the man. This is demonstrated by the use of " But I would have you know ". Did this come from the Corinthians?

Faraon,

The I is part of the quote yes. So the I is the Corinthian that dictated that part of the letter. Now Paul did not always quote word for word as he did here, sometimes he included their views in his response in various other ways, but the point is that most of 1 Cor deals with their letter in one form or another. And since he could not read well or write well for that matter because of his poor vision, such letters would be read to him even as he indictated in the place I mentioned earlier. Paul used men like Luke to write for him.
Faraon, said: Maybe it would be of interest to you what I found in the following concerning 1Corinthians 11 at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/smcdownlds/GdWdActs.html
From the Steve McRoberts' site http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/Smcroberts/index.html

1Cor:11:1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Once again Paul asked his readers to be his followers in the same way that Paul was a follower of Christ! No wonder they were saying, "I am of Paul"! But, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Paul was not a very good follower of Christ; he often contradicted Christs teachings.

Paul did not contradict Christs teachings. In fact Paul was selected as the 12 th apostle while still a persecutor of Christians because there were no immediate disciples around that would stand up for such truth. This is because they all followed the Law as a requirement for salvation along with James at that time. But our Lord picked Paul because he knew that Paul would fight them all on this very matter. And this he did indeed. Take another look at verse 1. It does not agree with the very verse before it that states:
33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
So is Paul teaching that he does not seek mine own profit or is he saying Be ye followers of me? Verse 1 and 2 represent the teachings of James which were the same views as the author of the letter sent to Paul. James is the one that was spreading such teachings throughout Pauls territories and he is the one that Paul fought against on several occasions. Here you have the beginning of the quote that Paul would refute. Yes all you have is a repetition of the doctrine that James and Jewish Christians that followed him taught against which Paul constantly fought. And how did he do this?
By ripping them up with his response on women after which he went on to say:
17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
There you have it Faraon. Not a very nice picture of the faith at that time is it. But if you follow this letter carefully and partition it just like we are doing here on the web you can see how the opposite of what you are saying is being taught. The hierarchy you describe existed with the Corinthians not with Paul. He exposed them, he berated them and he would send people there to deal with this problem. This is precisely the reason why Paul instituted the Elder arrangement in his territories. The rest of the apostles did not do any such thing but Paul did this alone because he found it necessary to keep such men (mostly Jewish Christians under James control) from destroying the faith in its early years. And this is why James finally wrote his letter to correct this same problem he caused. The book of Hebrews made the difference with James and such Jews everywhere and some came around as a result.
Faraon, said: 1Cor:11:3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Paul was describing a hierarchy with God at the top, and women at the bottom . These are not equal relationships. Therefore, God and Jesus are not equal (and therefore the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true).
The verses are also useless proving an hierarchy or in disproving a trinity since they are supporting Judaism and the Law Covenant along with a suppression of women all of which is not supported by the Churches of God. The Apostle Paul did not support such comments and neither should we. I did not bother with the rest of your post as it was already covered for the most part in earlier posts.
Joseph
Sentinel

...and then there was Lot's wife, of the Sodom and Gamorah story.
All she did was "
Oops!
Karen
Faraon

Karen,
Your picture is not showing. SYN posted a superior post on how to upload pictures to strike9.com
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=34583&site=3
I just used it and worked fine. Maybe it will work for you since it worked fine with me, and I am not
too easy to teach (maybe I am an old dog?)
Rene
Hecce

I am bringing up this post because I don't know if it was posted that Rene (Faraon) died last year, around June. He was a big contributor on this forum and also in the Spanish.
FYI

Most JW women are adulterers

Share this