I see no moral issue involved in the intimacy of two consenting single people in love. I do see a moral issue in marital rape or any other form of abuse within a marriage.
It could be argued that marital rape is indeed sexual immorality.
regarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
I see no moral issue involved in the intimacy of two consenting single people in love. I do see a moral issue in marital rape or any other form of abuse within a marriage.
It could be argued that marital rape is indeed sexual immorality.
regarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
Kerry - If a unmarried person engages in sex before marriage, then they are not keeping "their own future" marriage bed pure, nor are they honoring the institution of marriage, it is sexually immoral.
Then such a person doesn't engage with a married person and simply doesn't get married, thereby eliminating the risk of an 'impure bed'.
You are assuming that "sexually immoral" automatically means all sex outside of marriage. This is debatable based on the Bible itself.
I'm not convinced you're wrong, just convinced that this verse is not saying what you're saying.
regarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
KerryHuish
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
So yes, there is a clear Bible rule against sex before marriage and extramarital affairs.
A person engaging in sex outside of marriage or inviting other partners into the marriage bed, is not compatible with this principle
Kerry, this verse is clearly referring to a circumstance in which a person is ALREADY married. This says nothing about sex without marriage. Adultery seems to be clearly condemned. But then it is tied to the "sexually immoral". Again, what exactly is sexually immoral? We know God didn't object to concubines. Didn't he in fact even condemn one of David's sons for taking one of his concubines? Solomon also is purported to have had a harem, by his own admission, all the while being blessed with great wisdom.
It can't be denied that there are layers of acceptability here. Which again would explain why the GB may soon loosen up the rules.
regarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
(Porneia) fornication is not defined as hetero-sex between a single man and woman in love. Certain Pauline comments have been interpreted as such, but it is not explicit
Peacefulpete
That quote above was very interesting. At first glance the verses seem pretty straightforward and quite clear. However the author's assessment once again confirms they are not. It's almost impossible to read these verses as purely related to spiritual (non physical) things. Yet the opposite is also true, you can't just assume it's all physical. And when Paul does in fact finally get specific, he points to sex with a prostitute. Fine. But then what about a non prostitute?
regarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
Abraham claimed he was God's best buddy...and God spoke to him personally. He had multiple sexual partners..ditto for David, and many other "faithful" friends of God
This is a good point. Very CLEARLY God had no issue with this. Do the Greek scriptures new testament ever explain why eventually it should just be one wife/one woman only? Or did customs just change?
In the San Francisco area we had some bisexual/gay JWs men in the 60s whose wives WTB&Ts said were not free to divorce and then remarry. Why? Because Watchtower said adultery required vaginal intercourse with a woman...anal and oral intercourse did not constitute adultery!!!
This left me speechless.... however, this also confirms that the concept of porneia is, unsurprisingly, open to interpretation.
regarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
Which is better the old way of no sex before marriage at all? Or the modern way where hardly anyone is still a virgin on their wedding day?
Maybe this is the very reason the rules are being loosened in regards to this subject. Who marries a virgin these days (man or woman)? I wasn't when I got married 20 years ago and neither was she. It's even less likely now.
do jehovahs witnesses believe eccl.
10: 19 is literal or is limited in application in some way?
money is the answer for everything - eccl.
LongHairGal
And the change of attitude for everyone is of no fault of their own. What else were you supposed to do now that the horizon was so uncertain.
And yet, not too long ago... perhaps 2016... a couple of elders still came up to me and essentially judged me for working on meeting nights during my company's 4th quarter rush. I told them sorry peeps, but I gotta support my family. They proceeded to give me the old not enough faith schpeal to which I responded don't worry I'll be back to weekday meetings by January.
To be fair, some elders I knew were totally fine with that. Unfortunately, the judgemental ones by definition were always the loudest.
do jehovahs witnesses believe eccl.
10: 19 is literal or is limited in application in some way?
money is the answer for everything - eccl.
I think after 1995 the attitude of JW towards money drastically changed. So I believe that yes, they consider the verse these days as quite literal.
regarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
Additionally, private consensual intimacy and sex between adults of the opposite sex will be a conscience matter, as long as vaginal sex and pregnancy is not involved and as long as the activities are not broadcast openly to other members of the congregation. If a married person is involved, they must receive permission from their spouse and then respect their mate's decision if they refuse to permit it, otherwise a judicial committee will be formed and repeated attempts will be made to help that one gain "repentance.
There are two things that I believe are implied from the above. First (in the absence of vaginal sex) oral and even anal sex is a conscious matter. A conscious matter? That's huge.
Second, if a married person DOES receive permission from their spouse to have sex with someone else...is this now a conscious matter as well?
while having my first strong black coffee of the day, i was thinking about what may be to come next as the org.
rapidly goes mainstream, and this is what i came up with :.
1) they will introduce for sunday, the after meeting fellowship, a time for just chatting but with the added bonus of coffee and snacks.
However right now, I'm finding that the private conversations after the meeting much more interesting, with many of our good folk, making up their own wish lists of changes.
I heard the same thing at the memorial after dinner. It turned into a game of sorts hehe.
Birthdays are apparently high on the list for everyone. Wearing jeans and dress shorts to the meetings came up. College, being a doctor, being a cop. Men wearing long hair too. The blood thing was not mentioned.