Is Oral Sex Wrong for Married Christians?
Contessa
have never had the guts to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts?
Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some may think
it is unclean.
Responses please.
Jason
tell me.
Contessa <Conte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XZcF3.24204$Ze2.7...@nnrp3.clara.net...
Eric B
be found in a 1984 Watchtower magazine (I believe that topic of the
artical was something about families). It goes something like this. .
. It is not wrong for two people of the same sex to have feelings for
each other, but the bible does condemn 'homosexual acts'. Since two
people of the same sex can't have 'normal intercourse', the obvious
alternatives (oral and anal sex) are what these forbidden acts are.
Therefore, even if you're married performing the 'homosexual acts'
would be forbidden.
It's not immoral to be gay, it's immoral to perform homosexual
acts. Their arguments are a bit more involved, but, that's the gist of
the thing.
Eric B.
In article <XZcF3.24204$Ze2.7...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
"Contessa" <Conte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is a question I have always wanted to pose to the Governing Body
but
> have never had the guts to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts?
> Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some may
think
> it is unclean.
>
> Responses please.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mr James
g79 3/22 10
Als Hymer & Menno Paws
Contessa <Conte...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> This is a question I have always wanted to pose to the Governing Body
but
> have never had the guts to do so.
*** Why? Sex has left the "closet" many years ago.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
*** Yes. The GB has no business in anyone's bedroom or marriage.
> Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some may
think
> it is unclean.
*** To each his/her own.
--
Carol...
"It's hard to make a comeback when you haven't been anywhere."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
Als Hymer & Menno Paws
Jason <see...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<8aiF3.172$4oJ.3...@tomcat.sk.sympatico.ca>...
> It's simple. If you and your wife wanna do it, fine. Just
please don't
> tell me.
==================================
Sounds like the old, "Don't ask and don't tell" philosophy.
0/1
what's wrong with it? Homosexuals kiss. Does that mean those engaged
in heterosexual sexuality shouldn't kiss? I believe some have missed
that point, entirely.
Given the fact that many woman experience NO orgasmns otherwise, it
seems that -- at least in some cases -- oral pleasing is a necessity
for sexual pleasure. Your mileage (or should I say smileage) may
vary.
z
agent seven
said:
>This is a question I have always wanted to pose to the Governing Body but
>have never had the guts to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts?
>Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some may think
>it is unclean.
<watchtower-speak>
(1) The Bible makes no references to oral sex. That's not to say the
Bible has nothing to say about the matter! Far from it! Let's examine
what the Bible does say about sex, and what our attitudes toward sex
should be if we would like to be considered 'friends' of God, as
Abraham was. (2 Chronicles 20:7)
(2) Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. (Genesis 20:12) Although
we today hold incest to be a grave crime against the victim, the Bible
makes it clear that incest is a joyous activity, to be indulged in
with liquor, as Lot did with his two daughters. (Genesis 19:30-38). In
this modern society, we may find ourselves shrinking back from such an
idea. Indeed, the world generally holds an opinion contrary to that of
God's word the Bible, but should we really let that sway our opinion?
The apostle Peter makes it clear that Lot's night of drunken incest
had no ill effect upon his standing with God, calling Lot "righteous."
(2 Peter 2:7,8)
(3) Then too, is the example of King Solomon. King Solomon was favored
with 'wisdom and riches and glory' more than any other man before him
or since. (1 Kings 3:10-13) Should we not heed the fine example of
someone so favored by God in our own lives? King Solomon had over 700
wives - many of whom he no doubt had sex with. But it is interesting
to note that the Bible also says Solomon had 300 concubines. Webster's
dictionary gives us a better idea of what a concubine is: concubine
\Con"cu*bine\, n. [F., fr. L. concubina; to lie down, to lie
together.] 1. A woman who cohabits with a man without being his wife;
a paramour. Clearly, the Bible shows that it is fine for us to take
care of all our many wives, but that if we need a little sexual
variety on the side, concubines are a welcome provision of our loving
creator, Jehovah God.
(4) Although the Bible does not mention oral sex, there are certain
Biblical guidelines that any true Christian would want to consider,
since the Bible is 'inspired and beneficial for teaching.' (2 Timothy
3:16) The Bible makes it clear that to engage in sex of any sort with
a prostitute is a waste of good money. (Proverbs 29:3, NIV) It also
shows our fine brothers among us that they must never ejaculate onto
the ground, for fear that God may strike them dead. (Genesis 38:9,10).
Clearly then, if we are going to engage in oral sex, we would want to
do it only with a member of our immediate family, or with a concubine,
and only if they are willing to swallow.
Questions: (1) Does the Bible have nothing to say about sex? (2a) What
does the Bible say about having sex with two women at the same time?
(2b) What if those two women are your daughters? (3a) How many
orifices did King Solomon have at his disposal? (3b) What is the
Bible's view about keeping concubines? (4) What Biblical advice should
we follow if we want to have oral sex?
</watchtower-speak>
Boy am I ever going to be toast for this one.
I'm sure MMM will have a few sage words for you also. Oh boy am I ever
sure. Steve! You're the only one who understands me@#$!
A7
Contessa
ambiguous. As someone rightly pointed out often a woman can only orgasm with
oral. I'm unmarried and if I ever manage to snag a brother from the very
few available I know what I want.
Regards,
Contessa
Contessa <Conte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XZcF3.24204$Ze2.7...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> This is a question I have always wanted to pose to the Governing Body but
> have never had the guts to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts?
> Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some may
think
> it is unclean.
>
> Responses please.
>
>
0/1
What is a homosexual act? Sex between homosexuals.
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:58:29 GMT, Eric B <ericb...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> This is a topic that I examined when I was a JW. The answer can
>be found in a 1984 Watchtower magazine (I believe that topic of the
>artical was something about families). It goes something like this. .
>. It is not wrong for two people of the same sex to have feelings for
>each other, but the bible does condemn 'homosexual acts'. Since two
>people of the same sex can't have 'normal intercourse', the obvious
>alternatives (oral and anal sex) are what these forbidden acts are.
>Therefore, even if you're married performing the 'homosexual acts'
>would be forbidden.
>
> It's not immoral to be gay, it's immoral to perform homosexual
>acts. Their arguments are a bit more involved, but, that's the gist of
>the thing.
>
> Eric B.
>
>
>In article <XZcF3.24204$Ze2.7...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
> "Contessa" <Conte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> This is a question I have always wanted to pose to the Governing Body
>but
>> have never had the guts to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts?
>> Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some may
>think
>> it is unclean.
>>
>> Responses please.
>>
>>
>
>
David Ober
wrote:
(major snippage of "Sex In Bible Times" post)
>Boy am I ever going to be toast for this one.
>
>I'm sure MMM will have a few sage words for you also. Oh boy am I ever
>sure. Steve! You're the only one who understands me@#$!
>
>A7
I definitely understand you (and I love your witty, irreverant writing
style). My wife was a JW for 12 years and she wouldn't have anything
to do with oral sex because she was convinced (by elders at her
Kingdom Hall) that it was something that was *most likely* displeasing
to Jehovah.
She left the organization two years ago and our marriage -- and sex
life -- have improved immeasurably.
David Ober
afrikaman
if i remember very well, this issue was rased in a public talk while i was
in Africa in way back 1983.
the answer was ambiguos. simply put, they said do it if you may but 'at your
own risk!'
does that not sounds like use your free will at your own risk thing(?)
the elder back then who gave the public talk on behal of the GB said the act
was unclean! but it was not a DF offense.
if you ask my opinion here, i would like to ask which part of of the whole
oral thing is unclean?
if it is why isn't the US president sick yet from all the oral job he got
from or gave to Monika?
Oh, give me a sec here.........or was it the anal thing they were talking
about in afrika?
anyways, aside from homosesuality which i see as an attack on the future of
the Human race, i have nothin in the world with any other form of sex.
and when it comes to these other forms of sex......i might like to point out
here that if they are wrong i.e oral and anal sex, then the black race is
ahead of the white race towards Gods kingdom.........they ( the Black
people) basicly hate those other forms of sex......its like for us we go
into bed, kiss, stick it in and out and bam- thats it.
please do not attack me on this as i know what i am talking about.
as for me, i think took picks are made for after oral sex!! LOL
--
"Feeling like Perception is Intentional!"
.......it is weak hands that seek for wild cards!
and no, you don't have to say you love me, its alright!
afrikaman.
agent seven <agent...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:37e5d82c....@news.phnx1.az.home.com...
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:56:07 GMT, "Contessa" <Conte...@hotmail.com>
> said:
>
> >This is a question I have always wanted to pose to the Governing Body but
> >have never had the guts to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts?
> >Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some may
think
> >it is unclean.
>
> <watchtower-speak>
>
> (1) The Bible makes no references to oral sex. That's not to say the
> Bible has nothing to say about the matter! Far from it! Let's examine
> what the Bible does say about sex, and what our attitudes toward sex
> should be if we would like to be considered 'friends' of God, as
> Abraham was. (2 Chronicles 20:7)
>
> (2) Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. (Genesis 20:12) Although
> had no ill effect upon his standing with God, calling Lot "righteous."
> (2 Peter 2:7,8)
>
> (3) Then too, is the example of King Solomon. King Solomon was favored
> with 'wisdom and riches and glory' more than any other man before him
> or since. (1 Kings 3:10-13) Should we not heed the fine example of
> someone so favored by God in our own lives? King Solomon had over 700
> wives - many of whom he no doubt had sex with. But it is interesting
> to note that the Bible also says Solomon had 300 concubines. Webster's
> dictionary gives us a better idea of what a concubine is: concubine
> \Con"cu*bine\, n. [F., fr. L. concubina; to lie down, to lie
> together.] 1. A woman who cohabits with a man without being > Boy am I
campb...@my-deja.com
agent...@my-deja.com (agent seven) wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:56:07 GMT, "Contessa" <Conte...@hotmail.com>
> said:
>
> >This is a question I have always wanted to pose to the Governing
Body but
> >have never had the guts to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts?
> >Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some
may think
> >it is unclean.
>
> <watchtower-speak>
that was the funniest thing I've read here in a long, long time
>
> (1) The Bible makes no references to oral sex. That's not to say the
> Bible has nothing to say about the matter! Far from it! Let's examine
> what the Bible does say about sex, and what our attitudes toward sex
> should be if we would like to be considered 'friends' of God, as
> Abraham was. (2 Chronicles 20:7)
>
> (2) Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. (Genesis 20:12) Although
> we today hold incest to be a grave crime against the victim, the Bible
> makes it clear that incest is a joyous activity, to be indulged in
> with liquor, as Lot did with his two daughters. (Genesis 19:30-38). In
> this modern society, we may find ourselves shrinking back from such an
> idea. Indeed, the world generally holds an opinion contrary to that of
> God's word the Bible, but should we really let that sway our opinion?
> The apostle Peter makes it clear that Lot's night of drunken incest
> had no ill effect upon his standing with God, calling Lot "righteous."
> (2 Peter 2:7,8)
>
> (3) Then too, is the example of King Solomon. King Solomon was favored
> with 'wisdom and riches and glory' more than any other man before him
> or since. (1 Kings 3:10-13) Should we not heed the fine example of
> someone so favored by God in our own lives? King Solomon had over 700
> wives - many of whom he no doubt had sex with. But it is interesting
> to note that the Bible also says Solomon had 300 concubines. Webster's
> dictionary gives us a better idea of what a concubine is: concubine
> \Con"cu*bine\, n. [F., fr. L. concubina; to lie down, to lie
> together.] 1. A woman who cohabits with a man without being his wife;
> a paramour. Clearly, the Bible shows that it is fine for us to take
> care of all our many wives, but that if we need a little sexual
> variety on the side, concubines are a welcome provision of our loving
> creator, Jehovah God.
>
> (4) Although the Bible does not mention oral sex, there are certain
> Biblical guidelines that any true Christian would want to consider,
> since the Bible is 'inspired and beneficial for teaching.' (2 Timothy
> 3:16) The Bible makes it clear that to engage in sex of any sort with
> a prostitute is a waste of good money. (Proverbs 29:3, NIV) It also
> shows our fine brothers among us that they must never ejaculate onto
> the ground, for fear that God may strike them dead. (Genesis 38:9,10).
> Clearly then, if we are going to engage in oral sex, we would want to
> do it only with a member of our immediate family, or with a concubine,
> and only if they are willing to swallow.
>
> Questions: (1) Does the Bible have nothing to say about sex? (2a) What
> does the Bible say about having sex with two women at the same time?
> (2b) What if those two women are your daughters? (3a) How many
> orifices did King Solomon have at his disposal? (3b) What is the
> Bible's view about keeping concubines? (4) What Biblical advice should
> we follow if we want to have oral sex?
>
> </watchtower-speak>
>
> Boy am I ever going to be toast for this one.
>
> I'm sure MMM will have a few sage words for you also. Oh boy am I ever
> sure. Steve! You're the only one who understands me@#$!
>
> A7
>
campb...@my-deja.com
but
> have never had the guts to do so. Does anyone have any thoughts?
> Personally I am in favour of it between married couples, but some may
think
> it is unclean.
>
Why would it ever occur to you to ask if what you do in your own
bedroom is ok? Do what you want, nobody need ever know a thing. Why
would you think that a God who obviously cares little about poverty,
disease, and disasters care about what you do with your private parts?
campb...@my-deja.com
campb...@my-deja.com
Eric B
campb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Why would it ever occur to you to ask if what you do in your own
> bedroom is ok? Do what you want, nobody need ever know a thing. Why
> would you think that a God who obviously cares little about poverty,
> disease, and disasters care about what you do with your private parts?
Two reasons actually, 1: Many religions cause people to feel
guilty when they have any fun at all. 2: Many religions (and people)
cause people to feel guilty when perform any sex but missionary.
Another thing I remembered about the WT article about oral sex.
It's not a DF offense, but anyone with a position in the cong would
lose it if they unrepentantly (or regularly) practice oral or anal sex,
or masturbate.
~ Knotta WT Slave ~
0/1 <ze...@nowhere.net> wrote in article
<37e5d305....@news.earthlink.net>...
> Just because homosexuals do it doesn't make it a homosexual act.
So,
> what's wrong with it? Homosexuals kiss. Does that mean those engaged
> in heterosexual sexuality shouldn't kiss? I believe some have missed
> that point, entirely.
*** I don't think the GB got their nose in the JW's bedrooms because of
gay acts. They had another agenda. And remember these (the GB) are
all very OLD MEN. That generation saw everything as dirty, sinful,
unclean etc.
>
> Given the fact that many woman experience NO orgasmns otherwise, it
> seems that -- at least in some cases -- oral pleasing is a necessity
> for sexual pleasure.
*** You can be sure the GB was not the least bit interested in women
enjoying the act. Women, in their view are there for the pleasure of
men, to be USED by men. Women don't count as "people' in their own
right. And when the GB was young women's pleasure wasn't even
considered.
Your mileage (or should I say smileage) may
> vary.
*** True. The GB has no business in the bedrooms of their
victims/slaves/members/salespeople.
--
Carol...
"Living on earth is expensive but it does include a trip
around the sun."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
>
>
~ Knotta WT Slave ~
agent seven <agent...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
> (1)
> should be if we would like to be considered 'friends' of God, as
> Abraham was. (2 Chronicles 20:7)
$$$ And I'm sure God posted a watchmen at the Abraham's window to make
sure he didn't er,... indulge.
>
> (2) Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. (Genesis 20:12) Although
> we today hold incest to be a grave crime against the victim, the
Bible
> makes it clear that incest is a joyous activity, to be indulged in
> with liquor, as Lot did with his two daughters. (Genesis 19:30-38).
$$$ And Jehovah saw Lot as a just and decent man. By todays morals and
standards he was a lush, a pervert, a child molester, a incest
practitioner.... UGH!
In
> this modern society, we may find ourselves shrinking back from such
an
> idea. Indeed, the world generally holds an opinion contrary to that
of
> God's word the Bible, but should we really let that sway our opinion?
$$$ No... lets not go back to those moralless days, those times of
disgusting practices.
> The apostle Peter makes it clear that Lot's night of drunken incest
> had no ill effect upon his standing with God, calling Lot
"righteous."
> (2 Peter 2:7,8)
$$$ We now have more morals then this God had.
>
> (3) Then too, is the example of King Solomon. King Solomon was
favored
> with 'wisdom and riches and glory' more than any other man before him
> or since. (1 Kings 3:10-13) Should we not heed the fine example of
> someone so favored by God in our own lives? King Solomon had over 700
> wives - many of whom he no doubt had sex with.
$$$ God saw that as "good." The more the merrier.
But it is interesting
> to note that the Bible also says Solomon had 300 concubines.
Webster's
> dictionary gives us a better idea of what a concubine is: concubine
> \Con"cu*bine\, n. [F., fr. L. concubina; to lie down, to lie
> together.] 1. A woman who cohabits with a man without being his wife;
> a paramour. Clearly, the Bible shows that it is fine for us to take
> care of all our many wives, but that if we need a little sexual
> variety on the side, concubines are a welcome provision of our loving
> creator, Jehovah God.
$$$ I wonder why the JW's don't please their God and take more wives
and a few concubines?!?!?!
>
> (4) Although the Bible does not mention oral sex, there are certain
> Biblical guidelines that any true Christian would want to consider,
> since the Bible is 'inspired and beneficial for teaching.' (2 Timothy
> 3:16)
$$$ Who'd want to practice the above vices? :o(
The Bible makes it clear that to engage in sex of any sort with
> a prostitute is a waste of good money. (Proverbs 29:3, NIV) It also
> shows our fine brothers among us that they must never ejaculate onto
> the ground, for fear that God may strike them dead. (Genesis
38:9,10).
$$$ What if it "just happens?" This loving God then KILLS you? Watta
God!!!
> Clearly then, if we are going to engage in oral sex, we would want to
> do it only with a member of our immediate family, or with a
concubine,
> and only if they are willing to swallow.
>
> Boy am I ever going to be toast for this one.
$$$ But you brought some TRUTHS to light. You can bet the JW's were
never allowed to see some of this information.
~ Knotta WT Slave ~
Contessa <Conte...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
. I'm unmarried and if I ever manage to snag a brother from the very
> few available I know what I want.
=========================
There are so FEW avalible you'd be better off looking outside the KH's
before it's too late.
agent seven
said:
>I've read the Watchtower articles Karl was referring to - they are somewhat
>ambiguous. As someone rightly pointed out often a woman can only orgasm with
>oral. I'm unmarried and if I ever manage to snag a brother from the very
>few available I know what I want.
Hey good for you, Contessa! I think oral sex is 1/2 the fun of sex,
myself - giving and getting. I don't care what ANYONE says.
A7
Jason
> There are so FEW avalible you'd be better off looking outside the KH's
> before it's too late.
>
I was at a dance the other night. And I couldn't help but think of
Carol as I looked around the dance hall. (Doesn't that say something sad)
Anyway, as I looked around the dance hall I began to realize there was only
one single, avalible sister there between the age of 18 to 25. And she was
from over 400 miles away. So of course, I counted the single guys in the
same age group. 16 in all. Boy did that sister get attention that night.
But she's moving to the Phillipians (SP) so there wasn't much hope there.
So I gotta say, I still don't understand why you insist it's the sisters who
outnumber us single guys.
It was a fun dance though, we single guys decided to have fun without
the ladies. Started one big group dance, for some reason we were all in
dark clothes, mostly black. Then the sister joined us after a bit. It was
quite amusing to see 16 guys in dark clothes, with one sister in a bright
orange dress dancing in the middle. But ya probably had to be there to
appreciate it. :)
afrikaman
hiding.
I still have a video of the 1996 spring boat cruise at the Toronto Island
lake........check it out!
they were everywhere.
...and guess what, the regular pioneer sister I had as my date decided that
the time she would spend with me was better off used trying to get to say hi
and know the about 400 brothers and sisters from all over N. America.
well, I then decide to get myself busy with 2 Horny
from the great USA......only for her to come snatch me from them after an
hr. lonely by herself.
oh well, I got blamed for taking off on her........its like blame the
victim, you know.....except that I had refused to be the victim!
....and by the way, don't forget that the sexual energy that drives dances
such as the one you went to, is being channeled into the preaching work by
the GB so, don't be surprised if the sisters don't show up! they are 2
worried about how many hours they have left to put in 4 the month. LOL
--
"Feeling like Perception is Intentional!"
.......it is weak hands that seek for wild cards!
and no, you don't have to say you love me, its alright!
afrikaman.
Jason <see...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:hwGF3.237$4oJ.6...@tomcat.sk.sympatico.ca...
Mean Mister Mustard
<agent...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Boy am I ever going to be toast for this one.
(I'm not sure that even Homer Simpson himself could do a
"woo-hoo!" worthy of expressing the emotion I felt (yea,
still feel!) reading the referenced post!)
A7, that was an absolute work of posting art!!!! It was
so realistic that I ended up getting highlighter ink (or
is it underliner ink? which is more spiritual?) all over
my screen!!! I swear, when I got to the end and started
reading the questions I found myself raising my hand, and
someone was approaching me with a microphone in hand!!!
And everyone was smiling and restless kids were being
taken to the backroom for a beating and huge boxes of
cash were being prepared for transit to Brooklyn, and
the new light was a'shinin', and the memories of those
who died bloodlessly and, thus, needlessly on some cold
and lonely operating table were a'fadin', and kids and
adolescents who know what they've been missing all their
lives and have been (minimally) teased for it were a'hatin'
and a'despairin', and women who can remember what oral sex
was like are a'squirmin' longingly yet nervously, casting
a glance each way to see if others might be a'guessin'
what she be a'thinkin'....
Well... let's just say it was just like being there!!!
Beautiful work, A7!!! Can we all, like, work out a virtual
standing ovation, here, somehow?
>I'm sure MMM will have a few sage words for you also. Oh boy am I ever
>sure. Steve! You're the only one who understands me@#$!
Oh, lucky you! ;-)
I think this most excellent post of yours drives home at
least a couple significant points:
1) There are none so righteous as the righteously horny.
2) Any and every moral (if not sexual...) position has
biblical support.
I think you should quit the band and focus on doing
Watchtower spoofs, man! There's gotta be a halfway
decently sized market for that kind of thing, especially if
it could be consistently of that kind of quality. Call it
"Radio Free Newsgroup", or something.... ;-)
--
The words are mine; the meaning is you.
~
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 1 line, 40 characters
Mean Mister Mustard
<davi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I definitely understand you (and I love your witty, irreverant writing
>style). My wife was a JW for 12 years and she wouldn't have anything
>to do with oral sex because she was convinced (by elders at her
>Kingdom Hall) that it was something that was *most likely* displeasing
>to Jehovah.
Sometimes I wonder if his alleged displeasure with sex
isn't actually jealousy in disguise, what with his not
having any sex. Well, except for that one time with Mary,
of course....
Mean Mister Mustard
> Another thing I remembered about the WT article about oral sex.
>It's not a DF offense, but anyone with a position in the cong would
>lose it if they unrepentantly (or regularly) practice oral or anal sex,
>or masturbate.
Wow... in a position to lose a position over a position! ;-)
Gator
Mean Mister Mustard wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:57:07 GMT, Eric B <ericb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Another thing I remembered about the WT article about oral sex.
> >It's not a DF offense, but anyone with a position in the cong would
> >lose it if they unrepentantly (or regularly) practice oral or anal sex,
> >or masturbate.
>
> Wow... in a position to lose a position over a position! ;-)
After getting to the "bottom" of things, the elders would take matters "well
in hand" and after an "oral" chastisement
directed "straight" toward the perpetrator and participator of the mutual
sexual stimuli, excommunicate them.
In other words, if a JW engaged in oral sex, it would be best to keep
his/her mouth shut!
Gator
agent seven
Mustard) said:
>A7, that was an absolute work of posting art!!!! It was
>so realistic that I ended up getting highlighter ink (or
>is it underliner ink? which is more spiritual?) all over
>my screen!!! I swear, when I got to the end and started
>reading the questions I found myself raising my hand, and
>someone was approaching me with a microphone in hand!!!
>And everyone was smiling and restless kids were being
>taken to the backroom for a beating...
You are too kind, too kind. And I'm amazed at your own grasp of what
the "Witness experience" is like. Highlighters, (or underliners, which
are more spiritual only if you put lots of effort into making it look
nice) microphone-wielding adolescents, restless kids.
Such vivid imagery! It really brought me back. I feel like together,
we've had our own little virtual visit to the Kingdom Hall. It is, of
course, a Kingdom Hall in a completely different universe (since I
don't imagine we'll see the Watchtower dissecting Solomon's sex life
anytime soon), but hey.
I got a good bit of my material about sex and the BIble from a really
cool website. You might get a kick out of it. It's an awesome site -
very well researched and written:
http://www.hobrad.com/and.htm
"And Adam Knew Eve - A Dictionary of Sex in the Bible"
THREE CHEERS FOR ORAL SEX AND CONCUBINES!
A7
campb...@my-deja.com
Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but how many people out there actually
discuss their specific bedroom practices with others? I still don't
get why this would be worthy of any sort of "theological" debate, one
way or the other. If JW's are allowed to use contraception, this
indicates that they have decided that sex is not solely for the purpose
of procreation, and it is ok to have it for "fun". Since its ok to
have sex for fun without wanting to reproduce, why does it matter how
exactly the fun is had?
> Gator
Jason
news:37e86ea8...@news.zebra.net...
> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:33:29 -0700, "Jason" <see...@sk.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> > It was a fun dance though, we single guys decided to have fun without
> >the ladies. Started one big group dance, for some reason we were all in
> >dark clothes, mostly black. Then the sister joined us after a bit. It
was
> >quite amusing to see 16 guys in dark clothes, with one sister in a bright
> >orange dress dancing in the middle. But ya probably had to be there to
> >appreciate it. :)
>
> tension here" kind of way ... :)
>
> What the girls down here could do with 16 eligible bachelors. There
> is a gaggle of pretty single witness girls, and I've only seen one
> eligible man...and then he moved to California, leaving tears in his
> wake!
>
Hmm,, which congregation in what city? Looks like I'm moving :)
Impeach the GB
Jason <see...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> I was at a dance the other night. And I couldn't help but think
of
> Carol as I looked around the dance hall. (Doesn't that say something
sad)
*** Why?
> Anyway, as I looked around the dance hall I began to realize there
was only
> one single, avalible sister there between the age of 18 to 25.
*** You must have been at a dance in Alaska or Timbuktu. Maybe it was
a dance for married couples.
And she was
> from over 400 miles away. So of course, I counted the single guys in
the
> same age group. 16 in all.
*** Did all the females DIE in that remote area. There are equal
numbers of boys and girls born you know.
Boy did that sister get attention that night.
> But she's moving to the Phillipians (SP) so there wasn't much hope
there.
> So I gotta say, I still don't understand why you insist it's the
sisters who
> outnumber us single guys.
*** Because that's the way it was in NYC and here in TN. There were
at least 3 or 4 single women to each single male JW. And now you're
claiming there are 16 men to each woman. As I said... perhaps in
Alaska or some remote area of the globe.
>
> It was a fun dance though, we single guys decided to have fun
without
> the ladies.
*** I can imagine. What a hoot! I mean... 16 men and one woman, all
of 17 people at this dance.
Started one big group dance, for some reason we were all in
> dark clothes, mostly black.
*** You all dress alike so no surprise there.
Then the sister joined us after a bit. It was
> quite amusing to see 16 guys in dark clothes, with one sister in a
bright
> orange dress dancing in the middle. But ya probably had to be there
to
> appreciate it. :)
*** I'd have to be there to BELIEVE it too.
--
Carol...
"The only time the world beats a path to your door
is when you're in the bathroom."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
>
>
>
~ Eva Lution ~
campb...@my-deja.com wrote in article
<7sahqd$4r2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but how many people out there
actually
> discuss their specific bedroom practices with others?
*** I was wondering that myself as I was reading this thread. How
would the elders KNOW who is doing what in their own homes? And what
gives them the authority to get involved in someone's marriage bed?
I still don't
> get why this would be worthy of any sort of "theological" debate, one
> way or the other.
*** The GB somehow felt OS was wrong, dirty and didn't produce
another generation of JW's perhaps.... I mean, why should anyone else
enjoy what THEY weren't?
If JW's are allowed to use contraception, this
> indicates that they have decided that sex is not solely for the
purpose
> of procreation, and it is ok to have it for "fun".
*** But only in the missionary position as approved by that ancient
group of geezers.
Since its ok to
> have sex for fun without wanting to reproduce, why does it matter how
> exactly the fun is had?
*** See above.
--
Carol...
"If God wanted me to touch my toes, He would
have put them on my knees."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
Mean Mister Mustard
>Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but how many people out there actually
>discuss their specific bedroom practices with others? I still don't
>get why this would be worthy of any sort of "theological" debate, one
>way or the other. If JW's are allowed to use contraception, this
>indicates that they have decided that sex is not solely for the purpose
>of procreation, and it is ok to have it for "fun". Since its ok to
>have sex for fun without wanting to reproduce, why does it matter how
>exactly the fun is had?
Beats me... off!
Perhaps the Corporation has holdings in contraception
companies?
Or maybe it's because in the bible God formed Eve from one
of Adam's ribs, and thus there's something special about
things ribbed....
Mean Mister Mustard
>What the girls down here could do with 16 eligible bachelors. There
>is a gaggle of pretty single witness girls, and I've only seen one
>eligible man...and then he moved to California, leaving tears in his
>wake!
Well... technically speaking even tears are a bodily
fluid... so it's not like at least there wasn't *some*
kind of release that "came" of it....
Mean Mister Mustard
<agent...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>You are too kind, too kind. And I'm amazed at your own grasp of what
>the "Witness experience" is like. Highlighters, (or underliners, which
>are more spiritual only if you put lots of effort into making it look
>nice) microphone-wielding adolescents, restless kids.
Well, hey, I went to nine or ten meetings, and had my eyes
and ears open (heart/mind closed, though, apparently).
And then I've filled in the empty spaces with the reading
of thousands and thousands of posts over a number of years.
So it's not like I'm totally bootstrapping it, here.
>Such vivid imagery! It really brought me back. I feel like together,
>we've had our own little virtual visit to the Kingdom Hall. It is, of
>course, a Kingdom Hall in a completely different universe (since I
>don't imagine we'll see the Watchtower dissecting Solomon's sex life
>anytime soon), but hey.
I'll believe this is a virtual Kingdom Hall as soon as
the women outnumber the men, which is clearly *far* from
the case at this point! I mean, that's far and away the
biggest problem we have in our little v-cong, here....
But as soon as that happens, you get to write the study
material and questions. I'll work the mic. Others will
need to volunteer for the other important positions,
like those who'll be shoveling all the donation cash into
Kingdom Bags, and the Kingdom Bags into Kingdom Armored
Trucks. Someone else can be the one to hold the bright
light being shined in the lusty eyes of adolescents being
grilled and coerced into confessing to all the ungodly
wonton sexual depravity they've been engaging each other in
whilst mom and pop were out in the door to door ministry.
Obviously, PB will have final say in all
disfellowshippings, or "disfelatioshippings", as it
were.... ;-)
>THREE CHEERS FOR ORAL SEX AND CONCUBINES!
And sixty-nine cheers for the book that encourages such
in those who would be deemed righteous!
Justin L. Boss
behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
couple...the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be anal sex
and sex during a woman's menstrual period." there must be some evidence to
back that statement up. What Watchtower or what article did you see this in,
because until I see it with my own eyes I will not believe it? Not that I
haven't wonder if oral sex okay. Also we need to remember that it is not the
elders that we should be concerned with (men like ourselves), but our Grand
Creator Jehovah and what he thinks. When he sends he Son Jesus he will not
stop and ask the elders who is good and who is bad, he well knows.
With Love, your brother
~ Sweets ~ <ter...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ZBVG3.1282$m4.7...@alfalfa.thegrid.net...
> Unfortunately I missed the original post on this, but if someone has told
> you that oral sex is wrong according to the Watchtower Society, they were
> wrong (or simply mis-informed). The Watchtower Society feels that what
goes
> on behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
> couple...the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be anal
sex
> and sex during a woman's menstrual period.
>
>
> afrikaman <afri...@globalserve.net> wrote in message
> news:7sfvan$365$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net...
> >
> >
> > Mean Mister Mustard <ia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:tpxG3.4900$Wj.2...@monger.newsread.com...
> > > On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:24:56 GMT, campb...@my-deja.com
> > > <campb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but how many people out there
actually
> > > >discuss their specific bedroom practices with others? I still don't
> > > >get why this would be worthy of any sort of "theological" debate, one
> > > >way or the other. If JW's are allowed to use contraception, this
> > > >indicates that they have decided that sex is not solely for the
purpose
> > > >of procreation, and it is ok to have it for "fun". Since its ok to
> > > >have sex for fun without wanting to reproduce, why does it matter how
> > > >exactly the fun is had?
> > >
> > > Beats me... off!
> > >
> > > Perhaps the Corporation has holdings in contraception
> > > companies?
> >
> > again you got it wrong! mmm
> > kids interfer with preaching time!
> > 'we are in the never ending last days of this system of things and the
> only
> > 'works' that is given ( 'assign' in WT speak) to
> > us is the 'preaching work'. also, most kids raised as WT kids eventually
> > quits.....most Wertern standerds of child discipline today directly
> > contradicts the bible rule to wack your child and in a lot of the
> countries
> > the local law is above that of jehovah but the WT has no time for all
the
> > legal battles that will result hence it is a commonly held belief
(notably
> > in the cities) among JWs that having kids 'now' in a passing world is
> > un-biblical.
> >
> > simply put, save it for God's kingdom.
> > but you could be right too......with the WT, anything is possible.
> >
> > > Or maybe it's because in the bible God formed Eve from one
> > > of Adam's ribs, and thus there's something special about
> > > things ribbed....
> > >
> >
> >
> > ``We have found that the 21st century will be a very different
> > America,''
> > US Commerce Secretary William M. Daley.
> >
> > afrikaman
> >
> >
> >
>
>
GB= KGB Same thing
Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<37e9b0f...@news.zebra.net>...
> Wouldn't you know it....right off the bat, in Crisis of Conscience,
it
> is explained: apparently in 1969, the Watchtower put out a rather
> legnthy article discussing "sexual matters"
$$$ Like they BELONG in peoples bedrooms. The PERVERTS!
and a couple in California
> were turned in
$$$ That's the kind of false love they have for each other - turn each
other in for brownie points. Makes you sick. Stab each other in the
back then puff up with righteous pride in themselves.
for reading matter that involved "alternative
> practices" being in their bedroom.
$$$ They snooped in some one's bedroom... how LOW will they go to sell
a brother/sister down the WT river?
They were brought before the
> elders, confirmed that they had oral sex,
$$$ And the elders must have gotten a real charge out of that, more
perverts.
and the whole "affair" was
> turned over to the GB to vote on.
$$$ Well they think that the GB is God somehow. You know, the Father,
the WT and the holy GB.
>
> This is a fascinating book if anybody else here hasn't read it yet!
$$$ I really should get this book....
--
Carol...
"Good health is merely the slowest possible rate
at which one can die."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
afrikaman
~ Sweets ~
you that oral sex is wrong according to the Watchtower Society, they were
wrong (or simply mis-informed). The Watchtower Society feels that what goes
on behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
couple...the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be anal sex
and sex during a woman's menstrual period.
afrikaman <afri...@globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:7sfvan$365$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net...
>
>
1/0
that oral sexual activity was homosexual conduct. For that reason, one
JW wife would not engage in that activity. I'll bet a bunch of others
would not and will not today, because of what they believe the WTS
means and has published.
zzzzzzzzzz
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:29:37 -0700, "~ Sweets ~" <ter...@netscape.net>
wrote:
agent seven
>>$$$ I really should get this book....
>
>It's very well written, and covers a lot! I really like Franz, he's
>got his act together...now.
Yeah it is. Holy Cow, Carol, I can't believe you haven't read this
book!
The sequel, "In Search of Christian Freedom" is just as good, and
especially for those (unlike myself) who wish to remain Christians
*despite* the WTBTS.
A7
Ticket to Freedom
the $ goes for something else each month. Anyone know what the still
suffering JW's think of these books?
--
Carol...
"It's not hard to meet expenses; they're everywhere."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
agent seven <agent...@my-deja.com> wrote in article >
Ticket to Freedom
Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<37ec01e8...@news.zebra.net>...
> >$$$ Like they BELONG in peoples bedrooms. The PERVERTS!
>
> I know, it's amazing what is in the Watchtower, I have got to get
that
> CD.
> You'd think somebody would be too embarrased to admit, "hey, I was
> snooping in so-an-so's bedroom, and guess what i found!"
### They're not embarrassed at all when it means brownie points and a
better chance at the eternal life BS they're all spoon fed by the WT.
They'd sell their own mothers down the river for that ticket. It makes
you sick to realize what fakes and hypocrites they all are/become in
that cult. And all in the name of God no less. BARFF*****
> >> >
> >
> >$$$ Well they think that the GB is God somehow. You know, the
Father,
> >the WT and the holy GB.
>
> I still haven't gotten over the creepy feeling about grown people
> "tattling" on each other, in the name of love.......
### They do it because they've lost their humanity to the WT. They
lose their compassion , their loyalty to friends and family, their very
souls are sold to the devil's evil empire (WT) in exchange for a ticket
to that make believe Paradise earth the Society dangles before them
endlessly.
> >> >
> It's very well written, and covers a lot! I really like Franz, he's
> got his act together...now.
### I'm glad he's free of that group of fakes and hypocrites.
--
Carol...
"It's not hard to meet expenses; they're everywhere."
Before buying health products on the net see:
http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
Ticket to Freedom
But didn't Jesus say that there will be no more people "given in
marriage" after the big A? So if there will be no more marriages how
do the people, the sainted JW's have kids? By AI? By immaculate
conception? Or will they all remain single and just "party" with
anyone coming down the soon to be dirt pikes? I mean, no electricity
means no TV, no PC's, no radio... nothing much to do but "have at it."
Remember that Jesus said they'd be as angels... do angels do it?
Carol...
"It's not hard to meet expenses; they're everywhere."
afrikaman <afri...@globalserve.net> wrote in article
<7sfvan$365$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net>...
Ticket to Freedom
~ Sweets ~ <ter...@netscape.net> wrote in article
<ZBVG3.1282$m4.7...@alfalfa.thegrid.net>...
> Unfortunately I missed the original post on this, but if someone has
told
> you that oral sex is wrong according to the Watchtower Society, they
were
> wrong (or simply mis-informed).
*** Then you haven't been a JW for long. At one time they did believe
this and it was a DF offence.
The Watchtower Society feels that what goes
> on behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
> couple.
*** That's some "new-light."
..the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be anal sex
> and sex during a woman's menstrual period.
*** And how will they know? Do they peek into bedrooms? Have hidden
cameras? Do they <*GASP*>...Ask?
Risk All
Ticket to Freedom wrote:
> But didn't Jesus say that there will be no more people "given in
> marriage" after the big A?
That is one of the things a friend of mine who is a 7th day adventist
believes.And one of the reasons I don't want his idea of paradise. Said it
before say it again the idea of boozin,wenchin and fighting in Valhalla
sounds much more intrigueing.
> So if there will be no more marriages how
> do the people, the sainted JW's have kids? By AI? By immaculate
> conception? Or will they all remain single and just "party" with
> anyone coming down the soon to be dirt pikes?
The last part I could really go for. ROTFLOL
> I mean, no electricity
> means no TV, no PC's, no radio... nothing much to do but "have at it."
> Remember that Jesus said they'd be as angels... do angels do it?
I guess they could when they take physical form after all did not some of
them lust after women and come on down and create a whole new race of very
bad ass 6 finger boys?
Risk
Risk All
Ticket to Freedom wrote:
> *** Then you haven't been a JW for long. At one time they did believe
> this and it was a DF offence.
I believe it came under fornea or fornication even for married couples.
>
>
> The Watchtower Society feels that what goes
> > on behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
> > couple.
>
> *** That's some "new-light."
>
>
> ..the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be anal sex
> > and sex during a woman's menstrual period.
>
See now that is still just a matter of taste, ; )
Risk
Risk All
Tinky wrote:
> >I guess they could when they take physical form after all did not some of
> >them lust after women and come on down and create a whole new race of very
> >bad ass 6 finger boys?
>
> If they all look like Nicoas Cage, I can overlook the six fingers :)
Well Hell Tinks could just be they did and that extra finger could add some,
um, er, dimension to foreplay. : )
Risk
Come one come all come see the geek the freak and total tweak behind the jokes
and twisted puns at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5910/risk.html
The nets very own dog faced boy and bearded lady!!!!!!
Risk All
~ Gawds Pursin ~ wrote:
> I guess they could when they take physical form after all did not
some of
> them lust after women and come on down and create a whole new race of
very
> bad ass 6 finger boys?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------==============================
Right! They partied with the fair daughter of men and all that. What
ever happened to that race of humans? Anyone know?
I am a little fuzzy on this one but I think one story is that the flood
of Gawds anger
wiped em out. On the flip side of that, and once again I am little
fuzzy on this one,
but I think good little David went up against Goliath who was supposed
to have come from a race of giants who may have had 6 fingers themselves.
Now most of this drivel is old JW teachings concerning the Nephelim.
Therefore suspect and as I have not bothered to research any of it
my knowledge is therefore suspect.
~ Sweets ~
nor do any of the publications deal specifically and graphically with this
issue. However, I was told this by my friend when she was studying (with a
Pioneer I might add). Perhaps this would be a good subject to write to the
Society about.
Justin L. Boss <jb...@cpaaa.org> wrote in message
news:9pYG3.467$vG3....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> In order for you to say "The Watchtower Society feels that what goes on
> behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
> couple...the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be anal
sex
> and sex during a woman's menstrual period." there must be some evidence to
> back that statement up. What Watchtower or what article did you see this
in,
> because until I see it with my own eyes I will not believe it? Not that I
> haven't wonder if oral sex okay. Also we need to remember that it is not
the
> elders that we should be concerned with (men like ourselves), but our
Grand
> Creator Jehovah and what he thinks. When he sends he Son Jesus he will not
> stop and ask the elders who is good and who is bad, he well knows.
>
> With Love, your brother
>
> ~ Sweets ~ <ter...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:ZBVG3.1282$m4.7...@alfalfa.thegrid.net...
> > Unfortunately I missed the original post on this, but if someone has
told
> > you that oral sex is wrong according to the Watchtower Society, they
were
> > wrong (or simply mis-informed). The Watchtower Society feels that what
> goes
> > on behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
> > couple...the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be anal
> sex
> > and sex during a woman's menstrual period.
> >
> >
> > > simply put, save it for God's kingdom.
> > > but you could be right too......with the WT, anything is possible.
> > >
~ Gawds Pursin ~
Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<37ec80d0...@news.zebra.net>...
> . Seems that her
> divorce wasn't "scriptural" because her husband didn't have sex with
a
> woman, he had sex with an animal, and therefore it wasn't adultery.
> She was disfellowshipped.
=========================
Isn't that disgusting? If you have sex with an animal is beastality
(sp?) or something but not adultery. Well, what can you expect from a
group of all old men from the Victorian era?
--
Carol...
"Jury: Twelve people who determine which client
has the better attorney."
~ Gawds Pursin ~
Risk All <ris...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<37ECE868...@hotmail.com>...
> I guess they could when they take physical form after all did not
some of
> them lust after women and come on down and create a whole new race of
very
> bad ass 6 finger boys?
==============================
Right! They partied with the fair daughter of men and all that. What
ever happened to that race of humans? Anyone know?
--
Carol...
"Jury: Twelve people who determine which client
has the better attorney."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
~ Gawds Pursin ~
Risk All <ris...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> Well Hell Tinks could just be they did and that extra finger could
add some,
> um, er, dimension to foreplay. : )
=================================
ROFLMAO!!! :D
Ida Takenkash
Women were no more valued then the family goat or camel. Something to
be "used" by men. It's a good old boys club alright.
--
Carol...
"The only difference between a rut and a grave
is the depth."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
Terry D <Gran...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<EqlH3.231$x43....@homer.alpha.net>...
> Scriptural, a woman can not divorce her husband for any reason. I had
this
> argument with my brother-in-law. I really wanted to prove him wrong,
but
> could not find any scripture to contradict what he said. Just another
Thing
> that makes you wonder if the Bible is truly the word of God or just
the
> ideas of some old boys club.
>
Ida Takenkash
Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<37ee6f0b...@news.zebra.net
> People were disfellowshipped for 5 years, over this "distasteful"
> practice, and then the Society reversed itself.......
========================
It's reversed itself so many times it's going in circles...
campb...@my-deja.com
"~ Sweets ~" <ter...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Unfortunately I missed the original post on this, but if someone has
told
> you that oral sex is wrong according to the Watchtower Society, they
were
> wrong (or simply mis-informed). The Watchtower Society feels that
what goes
> on behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
> couple...the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be
anal sex
> and sex during a woman's menstrual period.
>
Isn't this a bit contracdictory? Its up to the couple unless its one
of the "unclean" things, at which point it becomes everybody's
business? What is the basis for determining which sex acts are clean?
I think what you are probably referring to is covered under Mosaic law,
but if JW's are not bound by Mosaic law regarding other practices (such
as the dietary restrictions) why would they be made to conform to the
sexual restrictions?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Terry D
<campb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7sqh61$5k7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <ZBVG3.1282$m4.7...@alfalfa.thegrid.net>,
> "~ Sweets ~" <ter...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Unfortunately I missed the original post on this, but if someone has
> told
> > you that oral sex is wrong according to the Watchtower Society, they
> were
> > wrong (or simply mis-informed). The Watchtower Society feels that
> what goes
> > on behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
> > couple...the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be
> anal sex
> > and sex during a woman's menstrual period.
> >
>
> Isn't this a bit contracdictory? Its up to the couple unless its one
> of the "unclean" things, at which point it becomes everybody's
> business? What is the basis for determining which sex acts are clean?
> I think what you are probably referring to is covered under Mosaic law,
> but if JW's are not bound by Mosaic law regarding other practices (such
> as the dietary restrictions) why would they be made to conform to the
> sexual restrictions?
>
dietary restrictions) why Can't they eat blood let alone have a transfusion?
Where was God before creation?
Think about it, Gramps
Bitzy
with and how.
--
Carol...
"According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
Terry D <Gran...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<eNiI3.102$C8.2...@homer.alpha.net>...
Bitzy
campb...@my-deja.com wrote in article
<7sqh61$5k7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> I think what you are probably referring to is covered under Mosaic
law,
> but if JW's are not bound by Mosaic law regarding other practices
(such
> as the dietary restrictions) why would they be made to conform to the
> sexual restrictions?
> ------------------------------------
It's a classic example of the old Pick-n-choose game the WT plays. The
dietary restrictions weren't worth the effort and the old geezers liked
to eat,... the sexual restrictions on the other hand... well, it's pick
and choose as usual.
Jason
> If JW's are not bound by Mosaic law regarding other practices (such as the
> dietary restrictions) why Can't they eat blood let alone have a
transfusion?
>
> Where was God before creation?
> Think about it, Gramps
Because the law on blood was stated in the bible both before and after
the law as necessary things.
campb...@my-deja.com
" Bitzy" <Bi...@Bite.net> wrote:
> Excellent question Gramps... lets see what they justify the blood
issue
> with and how.
I believe the blood transfusion ban comes from the New testament, where
Paul repeals the Mosaic laws, but retains some fairly non-defined
prohibitions (like fornication, blood, etc). As the doctrinal founder
of much of Christianity, Paul essentially took matters into his own
hands by abolishing the dietary restrictions and circumcision
requirements. As far as Jesus, the actual founder of Christianity, I
would be willing to bet that as a Jew he felt himself bound by Mosaic
law. When he did go against Mosaic law, he justified it by saying that
saving a life was more important then obeying the Sabbath. The concept
that human life is more important than doctrinal adherence seems to
have eluded the JW's in their blood policies.
> --
> Carol...
> "According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist."
> *~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
>
> Terry D <Gran...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <eNiI3.102$C8.2...@homer.alpha.net>...
> >
> > If JW's are not bound by Mosaic law regarding other practices (such
> as the
> > dietary restrictions) why Can't they eat blood let alone have a
> transfusion?
> >
>
Gary Gorton
encouraged to 'rat' on their partners and MANY were disfellowshipped.
Personally a bit of oral sex breaks the monotany.
Yummy!
<campb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7sqh61$5k7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <ZBVG3.1282$m4.7...@alfalfa.thegrid.net>,
> "~ Sweets ~" <ter...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Unfortunately I missed the original post on this, but if someone has
> told
> > you that oral sex is wrong according to the Watchtower Society, they
> were
> > wrong (or simply mis-informed). The Watchtower Society feels that
> what goes
> > on behind the bedroom doors of a married couple are left up to that
> > couple...the only sexual acts that are considered unclean would be
> anal sex
> > and sex during a woman's menstrual period.
> >
>
> Isn't this a bit contracdictory? Its up to the couple unless its one
> of the "unclean" things, at which point it becomes everybody's
> business? What is the basis for determining which sex acts are clean?
> I think what you are probably referring to is covered under Mosaic law,
> but if JW's are not bound by Mosaic law regarding other practices (such
> as the dietary restrictions) why would they be made to conform to the
> sexual restrictions?
>
BIBLE DOCTOR
not ours.The Bible leaves this matter to the personal opinion of
married people how they are making love to each other.
The point is that sex must be conducted in the context of marriage and
with consideration givento the fact that a man and a woman are involved
in such sexual acts.Otherwise God would have created only men as they
could satisfy their sexual desires the way You are mentioning.
BIBLE DOCTOR
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Mean Mister Mustard
>The intimate affairs between married true Christians are their business
>not ours.The Bible leaves this matter to the personal opinion of
>married people how they are making love to each other.
>The point is that sex must be conducted in the context of marriage and
>with consideration givento the fact that a man and a woman are involved
>in such sexual acts.Otherwise God would have created only men as they
>could satisfy their sexual desires the way You are mentioning.
Ack! Married couples are so boring! Who cares what *they*
do in bed? Chances are they're doing it either thinking
or wishing it were with someone else, anyway....
Familiar breeding breeds contempt.... ;-)
--
The words are mine; the meaning is you.
~
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 1 line, 40 characters
Balaam's Donkey
What constitutes marriage?
Gary
BIBLE DOCTOR <ob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:BjnL3.6070$%62.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com...
> The intimate affairs between married true Christians are their business
> not ours.The Bible leaves this matter to the personal opinion of
> married people how they are making love to each other.
> The point is that sex must be conducted in the context of marriage and
> with consideration givento the fact that a man and a woman are involved
> in such sexual acts.Otherwise God would have created only men as they
> could satisfy their sexual desires the way You are mentioning.
Betty Boop
JBRook1064 <jbroo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19991017142850.19982.00000052@ng-
| Clawing for brownie points, the couple are just probably stupid and
tattle on
| each other. Hey, it's a possibility!
==================================
Yeah, especially if they no longer like each other.
--
Carol...
"My wild oats have turned to shredded wheat."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*