Divergent

Joined

• started 56 topics
• posted 1,194 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Divergent

• 
  5

  A novel preaching method

  by Listener in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i came across this novel way of preaching on facebook.

  probably one of the easier ways to get your hours in.. https://www.facebook.com/jwbrothers.org/videos/538251706351890/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  How many people paid attention to that? LOL
• 
  15

  JW Brothers

  by Festus in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  there is a group called jw brothers in facebook.

  somebody has posted an article that catholic church has covered up child abuse.. http://www.myfoxboston.com/news/national-content/catholic-bishops-not-obligated-to-report-clerical-sex-abuse-vatican-says/72976327.

  this is what somebody had posted as reply:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  
  
• 
  33

  What authority have the GB got left to them?

  by Half banana in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ( jw governing body members are invited to respond) .

  however professional and glossy their pr makeover is, as seen on jw tv and the jw org logo... the bottom line is that 19th century religious adventist claims are no longer sexy..

  to outsiders the jw org now has all the allure of a donkey wearing lipstick..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  Makemeanunbeliever:

  Get over yourselves. The org is going nowhere except into the future. The momentum they have established will easily weather another 100 years of storms thrown their way.

  Yes, as evidenced by the "extraordinary" growth they had last year
• 
  14

  Baptised younger

  by Sabin in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so why do you think the borg is encouraging youngsters to get dunked sooner?

  i reckon it's cause they are easy to victimise.

  i mean, some-one could say, keep our secret, nobody will believe you & god wont love you, but think of the power they would have if they say "you will be disfellowshipped," on top.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  Satan, whence comest thou?

  
  From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it
• 
  11

  Thinking about...Oompahh...these days

  by Gorbatchov in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you still remember oompahh?

  the last weeks he is in my mind.

  not forgotten.. g..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  Didn't have a chance to communicate with him before as I wasn't active on the forum back then. I remember he committed suicide after being shunned by his family. Sad...
• 
  17

  If JWs are a religion why haven't they got a word?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  what is the word for jw religion?

  is there any other religion that doesn't have a word?

  catholics => catholicism.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  Cult
• 
  13

  Attempted arson Kingdom Hall Australia Feb 9 2016

  by Watchtower-Free in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/blog/2016/02/09/break-enter-arson-beenleigh/.

  https://www.google.com/maps/place/kingdom+hall+of+jehovah's+witnesses/@-27.7070899,153.2022375,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x97799a9c520da3ff.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  An opposing husband in South Korea torched a hall during a meeting in the mid 90's. Around 20 JW's died
• 
  24

  Df brother in shock I spoke to him at kh

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was vis it in a kh last night and i just thought i try something new.

  when amen was said i bolted out hall low and behold there was anot her poor soul just ahead of me so since he did not know me but i knew he was df i said a greeting to him he seemed greatabsolutely shocked and horrified thst i was speaking to him he acknowledged my greeting and scurried off in t i the night it was a great moment for humankind..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  This is the first time I've seen poopie say so much in a single thread =)
• 
  18

  Finding love as a witness

  by RawrSaysTheLion in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  hi i'm new.. i'm going on 2yrs as a baptized witness although i've just received a reproval on the grounds of living with a wordly man unmarried for 6 months.

  long story short it ended messy and i ran straight back to the witnesses because i do love jehovah and i missed my family.

  my issues were only with the actual organization.. i desperately want to find someone to share my world with but i feel like i'm too tainted to be loved by anyone worthy in the truth and my morals are to high to love another boy from the world.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  Welcome, Lioness. First & foremost, please understand that you DO NOT have to marry a JW. JW's have completely misinterpreted the command to "marry only in the Lord." Please read the following article & think for yourself which of the following 3 explanations makes the most sense:

  
  

  In 1 Corinthians 7:39 widows are told to marry “only in the Lord.”

  What does this mean?

  Context and background

  Let us begin by opening our Bibles to 1 Corinthians 7. As we skim through chapter 7 we are reminded that the topic of chapter 7 is marriage. The Corinthians have apparently asked some questions about God’s law regarding marriage and Paul is taking the opportunity at this point to address these questions. Verses 39-40 read, “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment–and I think I also have the Spirit of God.” (NKJV)

  Three possible answers

  What we will notice is that there are three scriptural answers to this question. To answer this question what we will do is look at the reasons for the position and against the position. Then we will draw some concluding remarks and leave the decision in your hands. In each answer, there are some difficulties in the answer. What we will look for is the answer with the least amount of difficulties. Unfortunately the phrase “only in the Lord” is unique to this place in the scriptures. We cannot go to another place in the New Testament and read the phrase “only in the Lord” to know how to apply the statement. If this had been the case, the answer would be much simpler. Further, the phrase “in the Lord” has a number of meanings in the New Testament. We will note these meanings later in our study. Therefore, there are three possible and scriptural answers that we will concern ourselves with. (1) widows can only remarry Christians. (2) widows could only remarry Christians because of the present distress, but does not apply now. (3) “in the Lord” means to marry according to the law of God. Let us now deal with each of these three positions.

  “Widows Can Only Marry Christians” position

  Arguments in favor

  This is the majority view. Nearly every commentary and scholarly work I picked up said that what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 7:39 is that a widow is only authorized to marry a Christian. The NIV translators were so sure that this is the meaning of the verse that they translated the verse differently to reflect this opinion. The NIV reads, “A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.” This is clearly an interpretation of the verse since all other translators render the phase “only in the Lord.”

  The greatest advantage to this position is that it is simple and straightforward. When reading this verse alone, it is the most natural answer to the passage. Further, the phrase “in the Lord” can refer to being a Christian. Romans 16:11, “Greet Herodion, my countryman. Greet those who are of the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.” Here Paul is clearly speaking to those who are Christians. To make the argument stronger, in 1 Corinthians 7, the very same chapter of the verse in question, Paul uses “in the Lord” to refer to Christians. Notice 1 Corinthians 7:22, “For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.”With this information before us and no other study done, it is easy to see why many would understand this passage to mean that a widow must only marry a Christian. If this was all that there was to the study, I would agree with the position present. However, let us notice the many difficulties that are presented by accepting such a viewpoint.

  Arguments against

  Let us begin with the most logical of arguments. No where in the scriptures do we read of any limitations upon whom a person may marry in regard to if they are Christians or not. In the very beginning, God commanded man to leave father and mother, be joined to his wife and the two become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Jesus teaches this principle himself in Matthew 19:4-15. This is general authority for all people to become married, unless there is specific prohibition, as we find inMatthew 19. But there is no specific prohibition against a Christian marrying a non-Christian. Many will misuse 2 Corinthians 6:14 to say that Paul is discussing marriage. But Paul is not discussing marriage and to make this passage a law that Christians can only marry Christians is something God never said.

  Further, such an argument violates the very commands Paul gave earlier in 1 Corinthians 7. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Paul answers the Corinthians question about some of them being married to unbelievers. He does not tell them that being married to unbeliever is sin. In fact, Paul teaches the opposite. Christians married to unbelievers are to remain in marriage (7:12-13). Further Paul says that by being married to the unbeliever he or she may become a Christian (7:16). To say that a widow must marry a Christian violates Paul’s teaching here that the marriage is sanctified if married to an unbeliever.

  If a widow marrying an unbeliever is a sin, then what must one do to repent of the sin? Put away the unlawful marriage. How else could a person repent of this action if it is a sin to marry an unbeliever? The only answer is through divorce. Is this what God has told us to do? Is this what we will preach to people that Christian widows must divorce unbelieving spouses? Again, this is in clear violation of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16. Paul said if the unbeliever is content to dwell with the Christian, DO NOT DIVORCE.

  What would be the logical argument to teach that widows must only marry Christians, but all other Christians do not have to? How can we justify teaching that there is logical sense for widows to marry Christians and not have all other Christians marry Christians as well? If God would command it of widows, why not for the rest of us? Some argue that it is better for widows to marry Christians. But that is true of all people. Others argue that widows needed to marry a Christian so the widow would be taken care of. But this is true of all Christians also.

  If Paul was teaching widows to get remarried to only Christians, why did he not say that in his other letter regarding widows and marriage? Turn to Romans 7:2-3. In this passage Paul gives the exact same instructions as he does in 1 Corinthians 7:39 except he says nothing about marry Christians. Did Paul give a different command to the Corinthians than he did the Romans? Turn to 1 Timothy 5:3-16. Here Paul gives the instructions for widows in Ephesus. In verse 14 the younger widows are told to get remarried so that they will be taken care of. Nothing in this passage says that widows are to only marry Christians. Did Paul give a different command to the widows in Ephesus than he did in Corinth? No. We must be misunderstanding what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7 since all of these difficulties arise from this position.

  Further, the statement by Paul in verse 39 would not make rational sense if “only in the Lord” refers to marrying Christians. Paul said that a widow is free to marry whomever she wishes. If a widow can only marry a Christian, then the widow is not free to marry whomever she wishes. It would be like me telling someone that they can go to any college in the United States as long as it is in West Palm Beach. The clause complete invalidates the statement about going to any college. This amounts to simple trickery. If Paul wanted to tell widows to only marry Christians, the simple statement would have been that widows are free to marry in the Lord. But he did not say it this way. He said they could marry whomever they wish. For “only in the Lord” mean marrying only Christians limits Paul’s statement of “marrying whomever they wish” to the point that it is not true.

  “Widows Can Only Marry Christians but Applied During Present Distress” position

  Arguments in favor

  There are many aspects of Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 7 that are said in the light of the present distress that the Corinthians were enduring. We see Paul make reference to this in 1 Corinthians 7:26, “I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress–that it is good for a man to remain as he is.” Paul certainly was not teaching that people for all time ought not be married. He said these words in light of the persecution that Corinthians were enduring. In verses 32-33 Paul explains why it is better to not be married during a persecution: “But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord–how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world–how he may please his wife.”

  Further, it can be argued that verse 39 was written with the present distress in mind. This can be seen from the flow of the argument given inverse 40: “But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment–and I think I also have the Spirit of God.” Paul said that she is happier to remain as she is. Was Paul saying that all widows are better off not marrying? No, that cannot be since he instructed younger widows to be married so that they would be taken care of in 1 Timothy 5:14. Obviously, Paul is says these words in light of the persecution. It would be better for widows not to get remarried during the present distress the Corinthians would be enduring. It can be contextually argued that Paul commanded widows that if they were going to remain during those difficult times, then they must marry a Christian.

  Arguments against

  But there are also some difficulties with this position. One problem is that the argument begins to pick and choose what commands were given because of the present distress and what were not. If there is a command that we do not like, then just attribute the command to the present distress. I do not believe we have the liberty to be so free with the commands of God. Unless the passage clearly speaks in such a way so as we know it is referring to the present distress, then we must be careful to simply throw away commands we do not like or cannot explain.

  Further, look carefully at verse 39 again. Is there anything in that verse which suggests that this command is referring to present distress? It does not seem to be the case. Further evidence of this is the fact that this principle that is given by Paul is given in other places in scripture. Romans 7:2-3 says the same thing as 1 Corinthians 7:39. Was Romans written in light of a present distress? No, it was not. It is a fundamental principle of marriage that a mate is bound to another as long as one of them lives. That was not a command that was true only in light of the present distress. It is a permanent command of God regarding marriage.

  We should also argue from logic. If this command was given because of a persecution, as the position argues, then what benefit would the widow have from marrying another Christian? If Christians are being persecuted, why would marrying a Christian be an advantage? It seems that the opposite is true, that it would be an advantage to marry an unbeliever and possibly be able to avoid the persecution. One who accepts this position must come up with a logic reason why it would be in the best interest of a Christian during a persecution to marry an unbeliever.

  “‘In The Lord’ Means According to the Law of God” position

  Arguments in favor

  The final way to look at this passage is to understand the statement “in the Lord” to not refer to marrying a Christian. Instead it is argued that “in the Lord” means according to the laws of God. There are many scriptures where the phrase “in the Lord” in used in such a way. Ephesians 6:1,“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” Colossians 3:18, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”These are two clear passages where Paul used the phrase “in the Lord” to refer to obeying God’s will and not to being a Christian. Paul is not telling children to only obey their parents if their parents are Christians. He is telling children to obey their parents because that is God’s will. The same for wives in Colossians 3. Paul is not telling wives to only submit to Christian husbands. He is telling wives to submit because this is the will of God.

  Therefore Paul is telling the Corinthians that when a spouse dies, they are free to marry whomever they choose, according to the laws that God has given. In particular, they are free to marry according to the laws that Paul has just stated in chapter 7. Paul has just spent a whole chapter dealing with God’s legislation in marriage. Paul is reminding his readers that these commands are still in effect, even if your spouse dies.

  Arguments against

  The only objection in my mind to this position is that this position is not the most natural reading of the text. It does seem more natural to understand the passage as referring to marrying Christians. However, we have noted that while this may be a natural reading, it is full of too many conflicts and difficulties. Also, the use of the word “only” in verse 39 is a limiting factor. Paul is placing a limitation upon the widows in some sort of regard. Some argue that the word “only” is limiting the widows to only Christians. But this is not a necessary assumption.

  Conclusion:

  The three positions have been presented. I currently believe “only in the Lord” refers to being married according to God’s law because it has the least amount of difficulties and do not conflict with any other inspired word of God. In fact, in light of all the commands that Paul has given in 1 Corinthians 7, it seems like a natural reading for verse 39 to say that a widow is allowed to remarry whomever they wish, as long as they obey the commands Paul has just given. Everyone in encouraged to study these things for themselves and come to a determination in regard to this scripture. I hope that this study will give you a good head start in helping you come to an answer regarding this passage.

  Flag
  
• 
  21

  Thoughts during the meeting today

  by stephanie61092 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  while i'm politely sitting during the meeting today, restraining myself from rolling my eyes as the brother drones on about how "having an independent spirit is devilish in nature" and "independence from gods organization only results in pain and strife", i only have one thought going through my mind over and over.

  "what would happen if i pulled out a gun and blew my brains out in this kingdom hall?".

  would anyone notice or care?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Divergent

  cofty:

  They would probably worry about who is on hall cleaning this week.

  Best comment so far! LOL. Sorry, can't help laughing...