the definitions of partnerships are shifting.
indeed, they are different around the world.. the law doesn't always protect good partnerships that aren't on paper, and sometimes the law protects truly bad partnerships that are on paper.
the bible or church doesn't really have a definition of what a lawful "marriage" is.. i propose this..... if you set up home with a partner, you are "wed".
Then there is a converse example. I know someone who shared a house with a fellow college student and they became "roommates with benefits". So they got married when all their friends started getting married, but later divorced amicably.
They remain friends today, but admit that even when they were legally married they were still merely "roommates with benefits".
the definitions of partnerships are shifting.
indeed, they are different around the world.. the law doesn't always protect good partnerships that aren't on paper, and sometimes the law protects truly bad partnerships that are on paper.
the bible or church doesn't really have a definition of what a lawful "marriage" is.. i propose this..... if you set up home with a partner, you are "wed".
I'm curious: what is the motivation behind attempting to convince others of the need to redefine "marriage" in this way if, as per the definition, it has no religious nor (more importantly in my personal opinion) any legal basis or ramifications?
I'm not attempting to convince anyone of anything. I made a proposition in order to open a discussion.
I don't feel strongly about the matter but was pondering it for various reasons, and sometimes my ponderings make their way from my overactive mind onto my keyboard in various ways!
So let's take Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall. Were they married? Not technically - their Hindu ceremony in Indonesia wasn't recognized by any government on earth (I think - open to correction) - but many consider them to have been married.
Take a Muslim man with two legal wives, say from Saudi Arabia, who emigrates to a Western country. In the home country both women are in a marriage (according to the government) while in the West the first wife is in a marriage and the second wife is a mistress (according to the government).
Even take Jehovah's Witnesses (though this isn't a JW-oriented discussion) in Catholic countries where divorce is not permitted by law but Scripturally it is if one partner has cheated. The WBTS makes allowance for a subsequent new marriage for the wronged partner which is recognized by the congregation even though not by the government.
I was also thinking about the expression "common law wife" or "common law husband" - some countries give similar legal status as marriage to partners who have been living together for a certain period of time.
the definitions of partnerships are shifting.
indeed, they are different around the world.. the law doesn't always protect good partnerships that aren't on paper, and sometimes the law protects truly bad partnerships that are on paper.
the bible or church doesn't really have a definition of what a lawful "marriage" is.. i propose this..... if you set up home with a partner, you are "wed".
The definitions of partnerships are shifting. Indeed, they are different around the world.
The law doesn't always protect good partnerships that aren't on paper, and sometimes the law protects truly bad partnerships that are on paper. The bible or church doesn't really have a definition of what a lawful "marriage" is.
I propose this..... if you set up home with a partner, you are "wed". You may split up, and perhaps get together with another partner later on. That's like divorce and remarriage, serial monogamy.
I say take religion and government out of the equation, then living with a partner in a committed sexual relationship IS a marriage.
i'm sorry but i haven't a clue how to link this so i will just put the address.. http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=342204186793.
this group has been set up by a guy that i knew from my days in the org.
he is the biggest hypocrite going.
I don't think anarchy at the Memorial is funny per se. We all remember how insane we thought "apostates" were. But Mickey Mouse makes a damn fine point on the facebook discussion - mention Jesus and then Jehovah's Witnesses go all apeshit.
Cult.
i'm sorry but i haven't a clue how to link this so i will just put the address.. http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=342204186793.
this group has been set up by a guy that i knew from my days in the org.
he is the biggest hypocrite going.
Good point, Mickey!
MsDucky, click on the Discussions link.
at a young age i remember watching tv and commenting why is the red cross always helping people and we don't.
the second big one is if the witnesses only started up in 1890 - 1900 did jehovah not have anyone else doing the preaching work?.
as a child i don't think we think about theological problems so what tipped you off?
A few years ago when we still had the bookstudy in a small group at the K.H. a man that stood about 6ft. 6in. weighing about 350lbs. walked in to the hall. Upon noticing him I got up and walked to the back and directed him to the foyer so that we could talk (really I wanted to get him far enough away from my wife and kids just in case he was up to no good). He was dressed in ripped up clothing, was smelly, and dirty. I asked if I could help him. He said that he could use a donation from our "church" so that he could get some clean clothes and a hotel room. I told him that our organization did not have a program to care for those in need. As the words were coming out of my mouth I felt sheepish. He said that he had received money from many other churches over the years when he asked. I apologized to him and said that I would ask those in attendence at the study if anyone could help, as it was just ending. I went into the main hall to let my wife know where I had been. When I went back to the foyer the conductor was telling this man that this was no a charity organization and that he would not be given any money and that he would have to leave. I hadn't even had a chance to ask anyone about money yet when I walked up on this conversation. I asked another couple if they could take my wife and kids home, they said yes. So I told this man to go to my car and I would take him to get something to eat buy some clothes and get a hotel for two nights, but that was all I could afford. The conductor started to object. I told him to mind his own business, Jesus would do it too. As we were leaving a single brother jumped in the car and said he wated to split the cost with me. We bought two pants shirt combo,fed him, and put him up. The conversations with the big man, the single brother, my wife, and the coductor will have to wait for another time.
70-Years, what a heart-warming story. Good for you.
For me it was so many things, but primarily the basic doctrine that "Jehovah" is about to kill so many good people. Oh and reporting field service time. That just felt wrong on so many levels.
suppose a practicing and, to all appearances, true jw knew a worldly person (me) knows a lot more about the wts than the typical jw would expect.
i mean, the person knows the wts's structure, the general information about the basic theories (chronology, other sheep, the flocks, the anointed...).
i believe that this jw would immediately suspect that the worldly has visited "apostate" sites.
dgp, it was someone like you that I worked with that helped to open my eyes to the big lie. This was before the days of the internet and his knowledge came from being a curious intelligent person.
Your knowledge is a valuable thing. Firstly, the fact that you understand the religion should open your colleague to discussing it with you. It sort of makes you seem like a potentially "interested one", which keeps communication open.
My advice to you is to translate all beliefs and activities into normal language, rather than to quote the literature extensively. For example, ask wide-eyed... "Does your group teach that everybody on earth is soon to be killed, except those in your group who will then be biologically changed so that they don't age, ever?"
The response will be something like "We can't say who will be saved", but the seeds of absurdity will be planted.
"Does your group believe that it is acceptable to celebrate the anniversary of a marriage, but any member who celebrates the anniversary of a birth should be shunned, excommunicated, never again spoken to?"
There are so many examples. Turn it from cult-language to normal language.
so this woman that i grew up with has sent me a friend request on facebook.
we've done a bit of back and forth "how are you" chat but i haven't accepted her request.. i can see she is still a jw because she belongs to some no-blood facebook group.. i do not want to be her friend on facebook.
i consider witnesses to be bad association and i severely limit the number of jw's i have on my facebook - only close family and people that i share close history with.. so what should i say to this woman?
Honesty is a virtue, I agree. I didn't "should I be dishonest?", I said how honest should I be? In other words, should I go as far as saying "I'm not adding you because you are a current JW"?
she replied "you just seem so happy not serving Jehovah and I need to surround myself with people that love him."
Oh, that's good.
so...memorial tonight, eh?
yup.
sunday was a fun meeting.
Gut instinct:
Leave your spoilt wife.
so this woman that i grew up with has sent me a friend request on facebook.
we've done a bit of back and forth "how are you" chat but i haven't accepted her request.. i can see she is still a jw because she belongs to some no-blood facebook group.. i do not want to be her friend on facebook.
i consider witnesses to be bad association and i severely limit the number of jw's i have on my facebook - only close family and people that i share close history with.. so what should i say to this woman?
Sad about deleting your sisters on Facebook, ana_dote.
Surely your family is more important than the cult?
