Our problem with the humility

[ComfortMyPeople]

On 2/13/2017 at 6:35 AM, Anna said:

The second subject I have heard a little bit about, but things already began to change when I got baptized, although some things regarding what's appropriate between a husband and wife still surfaced sometimes. But I have not been aware of anything in the past 15 or so years. I am glad. I never thought it was appropriate for the brothers to pry and get involved in dictating  what was a very private affair. I never really understood why they were so concerned about what practices go on behind closed doors of a married couple.....to me, it was none of anyone's business. Interpreting what was correct sexual behavior according to their interpretation of the scriptures was taking it too far, in my opinion anyway. What goes on in the bedroom should be based on scriptural principles, (just like everything else in life) and not on specific actions deemed right or wrong according to opinion.

Do you like to eat snails, or rabbits?

Disgusting, repulsive! But you know that in some countries these are delicacies. And the same could be said regarding eating snakes or dogs!

This comes up because these strong feelings reflect well the position of the GB about the kind of sexual behavior allowed or not between spouses. At least until recently.

If we review the statements (too long to post them completely) could perceive some evolution.

• ·        *** w69 3/15 p. 177 par. 14 Living Up to Your Decisions *** “A Christian husband should not be harsh or demanding in this matter […] , perhaps, even expect them to indulge in sexual perversions? […] Keeping busy in the ministry, personal Bible study, meeting preparation and participation, along with other congregational responsibilities, will contribute to self-control.”

So, some sexual behavior is seen as perverted. The solution: more Bible study!

• ·        *** w69 12/15 pp. 765-766 Questions From Readers *** We have received quite a number of inquiries from married persons asking about sexual matters […] These questions have dealt with conjugal acts […] We herein comment on such matters to the extent that we feel authorized to do so.  […] Married persons recognize the obvious way in which the husband’s organ fits into his wife’s birth canal to serve the serious purpose of reproduction. […] Thus it shows that to indulge in such perverted use of the reproductive organs so as to satisfy a covetous desire for sexual excitement is not approved by God. […] In many places even the law of the land backs this up, making certain acts between husband and wife illegal. For example, speaking about the United States, Time of August 8, 1969, observed: “Sodomy is illegal in nearly every state, even between spouses.” […] ) The fact that usually the male has the greater sexual desire suggests that he display a greater measure of self-control, even though his wife lovingly wants to satisfy him. […] However, beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go.

Thus, there is an appropriate way to be good boy, even legal. If the wife agrees, it does not matter. And, as the general topic we’re considering here relates to humility, let’s ponder if the marked bold statements above reflect this quality: “to the extent that we feel authorized to do so…beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go.” I think it is obvious that the writer feels about himself as authorized to regulate completely the procedures, despite his affirmations.

• ·        *** w74 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions From Readers *** That porneia can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sex relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. […] If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, […] Both marriage partners are guilty. Such a case, if brought to the attention of elders in the congregation, would be handled like any other serious wrongdoing.

There is unnatural sex between spouses. This was seen as deserving of biblical divorce and the elders should disfellowship them if both consent.

• ·        *** w76 2/15 p. 123 par. 15 You Must Be Holy Because Jehovah Is Holy *** “Later, another issue needed attention. Unnatural practices in connection with sex in marriage, such as oral and anal copulation, have caused some of God’s people to become impure in his eyes.”

More on the same line.

• ·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers *** Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters? […] A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. […] This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. [the elders] could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service

Well, the things begin to change. There is no Scriptural instruction. No expulsion, but no privilege in the congregation. Now, what is important for our consideration about pride or humility, let’s note these statements: “a careful further weighing… refrain from taking a dogmatic stand.” In other words, “we, the writers, the GB, until now and concerning this matter, we have been dogmatic and we had not scriptural basis to sustain our view.” Would not we expect this from humble people?

• ·        *** w83 3/15 pp. 30-31 Honor Godly Marriage! *** […] As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion […] . A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct.

This is basically our (GB) present position. Some sexual activities between the matrimony are repulsive. No privileges for these persons. It could lead to expulsion it the brother advocates this kind of behavior.

• ·        *** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.”

Could this be seen as “new light?” This recent article states (the truth) that the Bible does not provide specific rules nor limits.

Now the damages

About 50 years of statements have been presented. The evolution goes from direct expulsion to only be removed of privileges. And if there is a braze promotion of the practices the consequences could go beyond.

I’m personal witness of the suffering of these standards in a number of couples. For example, in one congregation I was serving both partners agreed in the fact they both find this conduct acceptable. They have been practicing oral sex for some time but one of them, only for the standards in our literature did not want to continue. The other partner confesses me time later that had to resist the temptation to look outside for what was denied within.

Another couple I started to study the Bible with them, have had in the past a sexual conduct far from the Bible principles. He was homosexual, she was a prostitute. When the “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony arose in the study, they BOTH mention about their necessities, completely different from the standards in our literature. They both told me that they didn’t find disgusting these practices. On time, they stopped studying for several reasons, but I always thought that, at some degree, they found our standards too restrictive.

Finally, in my present congregation, on a shepherding visit to a Christian couple the wife told us (with some shame) that she was willing to (certain practice) with her husband, but she had heard that this was a sin and stopped. The matrimony had trouble since then.

Now, the most important

What does the Bible teach us regarding this matter?

In the Hebrew Scriptures we found some precise regulations about the type of sexual behavior. The sex wasn’t allowed during menstruation. Matrimony between some relatives was forbidden, and so on. And what about the “sexual mechanism” between spouses? Nothing. This was so, despite the fact the Canaanites were a depraved people. They had orgies and male prostitutes, so we can suppose these persons practiced oral and anal sex in their lives. Why did not God specifically prohibit it? This was during an epoch where the conscience had a lesser role in the life of Jehovah’s worshippers and everything had to be more regulated.

In the first century the morality of Greeks and Romans was everything less moral. What advice did the first Christians found in the Greek Scriptures to avoid the depravation? Quite a number, for example, the husband needs to be tender and loving. But what happened if both spouses agreed in some kind of particular sexual conduct between them?

• ·        (1 Cor 7:2-5) “but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent […] in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control.”

Man and woman are debtors about the sexual necessities of each other. The main factor to determine the sexual conduct is “mutual consent.” What if we wish to be less “tender” and more… you know, the opposite? What if we both agree we both want, we both need, we both find it satisfying some sexual activities? According the above verses, the only answer I can find is to consider this as debt, a necessity to satisfy. And, is not this better that leave my partner “hungry”, exposed to temptation?

 

 

 

When they ask you and you do not know

• ·        (Mat 17:24-27) “After they arrived in Capernaum, the men collecting the two drachmas tax approached Peter and said: “Does your teacher not pay the two drachmas tax?” He said: “Yes.” However, when he entered the house, Jesus spoke to him first and said: “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive duties or head tax? From their sons or from the strangers?” When he said: “From the strangers,” Jesus said to him: “Really, then, the sons are tax-free.”

What characteristic did Peter show with this quick answer? Humility? Have you ever face this situation? Someone ask you something, and you are afraid that if you simple say “I don’t know” the consideration of others would decrease? It has happened to me a lot of times! I think it is pride. And this is exactly what I’ve seen in the statements (of the GB) when has tried to regulate this aspect in our life that God himself has not considered necessary to regulate. I sincerely believe these brothers have imposed their preferences about what is correct or wrong in my bedroom. And I’ve seen the hurt of this regulations in the life of people. I hope the path of humility will impose and, perhaps, I will see some apologize…

[ComfortMyPeople]

On 2/13/2017 at 6:35 AM, Anna said:

The third point I have been following for some time as you have probably figured out. We actually had good policies but not perfect ones. Plus the trouble was that they didn't always get followed. It's a complicated subject and a lot of it has been distorted by the media and ex- witness victims who have a grudge against the society on the whole.  What is good is that our policies will keep on improving. It will be interesting to watch the new hearing in March https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/27353-australian-royal-commission-final-report-of-handlin-of-child-sexual-abuse/#comment-34899

Regarding this thorny issue I feel frankly better after the last changes regarding our policies. What has hinder a better and quicker approach to the problem is, in my opinion, as usual, pride.

• ·        We’ve seen the secular authorities as antagonist. Judges as enemies, police as intruders, psychologists as obtrusive, social services as snoopers.
• ·        We’ve seen ourselves as completely and fully trained to deal with these horrors by our means.
• ·        We’ve treated this sin in the congregation, this frightening sin, as any other sin to deal with.
• ·        We’ve given more importance to our reputation (God’s name) than the cry of the afflicted

I wish we would have been more humble to recognize that:

• ·        Secular authorities are in a much better position to discover this kind of evil. They can register a home, confiscate a computer or cellular, interrogate neighbors and coworkers. We could not.
• ·        The vast majority of us aren’t trained to deal with children victims of abuse. Adults accustomed to cheating cheekily, ruthlessly. So, in spite of dozens of letters and schools the elders have attended.
• ·        This is not a normal sin. This is not as smoking. The child is terrified and ashamed. The wife is afraid to admit it. The two-witness rule cannot apply. We should not face the victim in front of the perpetrator and three other men (the judicial committee).
• ·        Soon or later everything arises. God’s name would have been cleaner reporting these facts to the authorities, not only allowing the victims to do this, but encouraging them to do this to better protect them.

Well, as I’ve mention, our recent policies finally allow:

• ·        Don’t face victim and accused.
• ·        Allowing a third person (parents or a friend of the victim) stay with the victim to make her feel more comfortable.
• ·        At least, not discouraging to go to authorities or search for professional help.
• ·        The circuit overseer chooses a better qualified elder from outside the congregation to preside the committee.

As Anna mention, hope these policies will improve with the blessing of Jehovah.

I’m trying, here in my congregation, to contact with an inactive sister. His father, still a witness in another region, never was disfellowshipped. The elders only had the testimony of one unique witness, the victim. Now many years later this sister is very resentful with the congregation because they “could not help her.” Do you know what will be my first words when I could reach her? “I ask you for forgiveness”.

Are not others also responsible?

[Melinda Mills]

*** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.”

 

Hi Comfort, re the above, I appreciate your mentioning these things difficult subjects as you have successfully done before; communications on these things is necessary, so don’t give up. (It is like discussing sex with your pre-teens, unpleasant to some people but it is necessary.) However, please note this reference says “natural” sexual intimacy. I believe people should understand the Bible and the spirit behind God’s laws, as well as perceiving that the will of God is when it is not spelled out. So I beg to disagree with you here. In fact I like what was written before time and which has not been mentioned much recently. For this reason I continue to believe what I see here in “True peace and Security – How Can You Find it”.

 

*** tp chap. 13 pp. 149-151 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? ***

Wisely Avoiding All Uncleanness and Sexual Greed

17 Sexual relations plainly have a proper place in the lives of married persons. God provided this as the means by which children would be produced, and also as a source of pleasure to the parents. (Genesis 9:1; Proverbs 5:18, 19; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5) Nevertheless, he warned against abusing this gift.—Ephesians 5:5.

18 Because of the emphasis placed on sex today, many young folks find that their desire for sexual satisfaction is aroused even before they are in position to marry. As a result, some of them seek pleasure through self-stimulation of their sexual parts. This is masturbation, or self-abuse. Is it a proper or wise practice?

19 The Scriptures counsel: “Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness.” (Colossians 3:5) Is one who practices masturbation ‘deadening his body members as respects sexual appetite’? On the contrary, he is stimulating the sexual appetite. The Bible urges that one avoid the thinking and conduct that lead to such problems, replacing them with wholesome activity, and that one cultivate self-control. (Philippians 4:8; Galatians 5:22, 23) When earnest effort is put forth to do this, such self-abuse can be avoided, with benefits mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

20 What the Bible says respecting “uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire” applies to all Christians, single and married. It is true that husband and wife have a Scriptural right to engage in sexual relations with each other. But does this mean that they can throw off all restraint? The fact that God’s Word urges all Christians to cultivate self-control argues against such a view. (2 Peter 1:5-8) The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”?

21 On considering what the Scriptures say, a person may realize that his former thinking on these matters was molded by those who are, as the Bible says, “past all moral sense.” But, with God’s help, one can “put on the new personality,” which is molded in accord with God’s standards of righteousness. (Ephesians 4:17-24) In this way a person shows that he truly means it when he says that he wants to do God’s will. Your View Vitally Affects Your Peace and Security

22 Applying the counsel of God’s Word as respects sexual morality is not burdensome. Contrast the fruitage of the course the Bible outlines with the world’s high rate of divorce, broken homes, delinquent children, prostitution, disease, and the violence and murders committed in connection with sexual passion. (Proverbs 7:10, 25-27) How evident the wisdom of God’s Word! When you reject worldly thinking based on selfish desire and bring your thinking into harmony with Jehovah’s counsel, your heart is greatly strengthened in right desires. Instead of fleeting pleasures of sexual immorality, you enjoy a clean conscience and enduring peace of mind. Marriage and family ties are fortified with the growth of mutual trust between marriage mates and with respect from the children.

23 And do not lose sight of the fact that your very hope of eternal life is involved. So Scriptural morality will contribute to more than your present health. (Proverbs 5:3-11) It will become part of the evidence that you truly deplore the detestable things done by people who have no regard for God and that you have been ‘marked’ for survival into God’s “new earth,” where, not immorality, but righteousness is to dwell. How vital, then, that you ‘do your utmost now to be found finally by God spotless and unblemished and in peace.’—Ezekiel 9:4-6; 2 Peter 3:11-14. Further, I think the will of God in these things can be perceived and it is not left up to the persons in their bedroom to do what they wish. Servants of God are always in God’s view and presence. I think these scriptures bear on the topic.

(Ephesians 5:17) On this account stop being unreasonable, but keep perceiving what the will of Jehovah is.

God’s will can be perceived when we get to know him well from studying the things he says he likes and the things he says he hates.

(Proverbs 3:5, 6) Trust in Jehovah with all your heart, And do not rely on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways take notice of him, And he will make your paths straight.

(Jude 7) . . .. 7 In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go•morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.

If he can see our heart and know our thinking, he surely is interested in everything we do – so nothing is out of his range. In all our ways we should take notice of what he wants us to do (bedroom included). We should like the things he likes, and hate the things he hates. Proper view would not come overnight but we can work on it as a work in progress. We will get there. For example, if we are diagnosed with a common disease such as diabetes, hypertension, etc., we don’t go along as usual if we wish a cure or have it under control, we amend our regimen, more exercise, proper diet, less salt, etc. Because we might like certain foods, that does not mean that we can’t forego them so we can have better health. God expects us to give up things that we once did that were part of this world’s darkness so as to have his friendship.

On the matter of the “harm” that is done to couples who desisted from practicing them after coming into the truth, that could be said for also refusing to take blood or obedience to other Godly requirements. We took up our torture stake and agreed to suffer to be friends with God. Anyway, God says he is teaching us to benefit ourselves.

==========

On the matter of the Royal Commission, this showed up a lot of deficiencies, many of which were well itemized in your post. Hope these would be handled better from now on. Recently a letter was read emphasizing that matters of child abuse should be reported to the authorities.

[Witness]

^"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.  But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." 2 Tim 4:3-5

The word “obey” is as powerful as, “breathe” when a woman gives birth, or “stop” when a loved one sees peril awaits us.  How many times are the sheep told to obey, have obedience -  to the elders and the GB? “Listen, obey, and be blessed”.  This is, on the surface, implying obedience to God; but the reality is obedience to the elders who run the organization, teaching very young ones to be “company men”.

When God’s chosen people have been found “sexually immoral” (Deut 31:16; Ezek 16:15) it is referring to their break in covenant with God and with Christ, and for serving their own whims and desires – the work of their hands that builds power for themselves. Matt 4:9 They have left Christ, even if it appears otherwise, by defending and serving a “created thing”, an idol.  Rom 1:25

 “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.  What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’” 2 Pet 2:20-22

To believe that God would bless a system that consistently errors and still call it “spirit-directed”, is foolishness.  There are those here who zealously defend the organization and its leaders, yet our primary concern is to defend God and Christ by detaching ourselves from fables – failed dates, wavering teachings, wrong paths, and introducing others to follow in their footsteps! Ezek 13:10-12,18; 2 Tim 3:6,7 For those who are aware of the history of the organization and its confusion in teachings, why would anyone, who has love for their neighbor, put that burden on an unsuspecting one at the door (or cart)?  Should they hide the JW history, as the Watchtower is trying to do? 

Yes, many people have been greatly harmed by this organization.  Apparently, there are few JWs who are moved by such a horrendous fact.  God realizes the harm done to lives following the wrong path, a path that many times is pointed to - covertly.  Rev 14:8  If we claim to love God and Christ, why don’t we individually realize the extent of our actions on others through our teaching?  This is an example of love of the greater number cooling off. Matt 24:10-12  Will the organization put a stop to this spiritual, and at times, physical, “bloodshed”?  No. The Father and Christ will.

Why does Christ come as a thief in the night?  Because his chosen ones are living under a ruse of “peace and security” – safety in an organization known to be salvation, and under the heavy hand of a wicked slave. Matt 25:1-13;24:45-51  While under this illusion, destruction follows as “labor pains upon a pregnant woman”.  This is the heavenly promised/ “woman” giving birth to God’s Kingdom, (the completed number of 144,000) not through signs found within Satan’s world, but through heavenly signs. Rev 12:12-4; 1 John 5:19; John 18:36   JWs teach the Kingdom was “born” in 1914:

Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things.—2 Timothy 3:1-5.  What does the bible teach?

“And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.  For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. Matt 24:6-8

The GB preaches the Kingdom as having been “born” in 1914, then describe the state of affairs in the world as birth pains; apparently out of sync with the natural process of birth – labor pains, then birth.  Truly, this ongoing lie slanders God!  It has deceived his anointed ones to sit back in comfort, even though this teaching requires constant adjustments. Each anointed heart fights individually with Satan, through acceptance or non acceptance of his lies. Luke 22:31 Surely, JWs see that many teachings called truth within the organization have been found to be falsehoods.  Time doesn't erase this fact.

 No anointed one who remains in the congregation will be “sealed” in Christ, unless they face the same persecution he did, spiritually, even to “death” (disfellowshiping). Matt 23:34; John 15:20; 16:1-4; Rev 3:13-15; 12:17; 11:7; 6:11.  If they choose to obey men rather than Christ, they too, are fornicators, because they have exchanged their purity for untruth. They are no longer virgins, but defiled harlots.  Rev 14:5;3:18; Matt 25:10; 2 Cor 11:2-4; Rev 2:20

To believe this is not possible with God’s own chosen ones, the GB, who appears as a lamb but speak like a dragon (lies, Rev 13:11), is to believe none of God’s leaders in the bible have fallen to Satan’s desire and will.  Darkness is anything off the path of truth.  Christ would never allow darkness to be taught as “good fruit”.  1 Thess 5:1-11; Matt 5:13-16; 12:33

To seek harmony with those who have exalted themselves above all God’s slaves, is seeking corruption of truth in Christ. 1 Cor 6:15-17  To believe Satan, at this last time period in history will not outwit Christ’s seed with forces that appear benevolent, is blindness. Rev 3:18  He is a powerful force, and not ready to give up his kingdoms of the world. 

“Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.”  Rev 2:20

Jesus is speaking to HIS servants, his chosen ones, who have gone astray; seduced into following a pompous GB who enforce lies and obedience.

Like Belshazzar, they have not humbled their heart, ‘but lifted themselves up against the lord of heavens’.  Daniel brings out:

“And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified.”  Dan 5:23

"Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written. And this is the inscription that was written:

MENE, MENE, TEKEL,UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it;  TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.”  Dan 5:24-28

There will be a change in the organization.  The GB will be booted out, her sins exposed by God putting it into the hearts of a combination of both anointed and not anointed – the “eighth king” of Revelation. Rev 17:15-18 It will rule for “one hour”; a short time period before God and Christ step in.  Rev 17:12-14; 8:8  It is imperative for the anointed potential “kings and priests” – God’s sanctuary - to leave the oppression and lies, and turn completely to Christ.  It is imperative for all in the organization who value their life with God and Christ, to do the same. Matt 24:15,16;Eph 2:20-22; 1 Cor 3:16,17;  John 12:25

Earth Swallows Satan’s River - http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/02/earth-swallows-satans-river.html

 

On 2/12/2017 at 11:34 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

Final: before you consider I’m one of the camouflaged apostates over there. In spite of all my doubts, in spite of my disagreements, I OBEY.

I have been called an "apostate" for not accepting 1914 as truth, and for obeying Christ, my Head, and not men.

Christ was considered an apostate for obeying God's word over men.  He set the pattern for all to follow - which is pure truth.  

 

[ComfortMyPeople]

3 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Hi Comfort, re the above, I appreciate your mentioning these things difficult subjects as you have successfully done before; communications on these things is necessary, so don’t give up. (It is like discussing sex with your pre-teens, unpleasant to some people but it is necessary.) However, please note this reference says “natural” sexual intimacy. I believe people should understand the Bible and the spirit behind God’s laws, as well as perceiving that the will of God is when it is not spelled out. So I beg to disagree with you here. In fact I like what was written before time and which has not been mentioned much recently. For this reason I continue to believe what I see here in “True peace and Security – How Can You Find it”.

Melinda, as always, your commentaries are very welcome. Too, your words reflect good reasoning, scriptural and wise.

The only issue is, in my opinion, is when we apply uncleanness to certain practices or we refer to a particular conduct as “normal.” When I’ve dealt about these matters with other people, and they ask me about reasons, or proof that some particular behavior fits into “disgraceful”, I can’t answer with my personal views, nor our literature. I need to use the Bible, only the Bible.

The 1973 tp book paragraph you’ve quoted:

• ·        The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”?

It is modified for this posterior explanation:

• ·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***[Footnotes] Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts.

I see in the above quote three ideas.

• First. Paul’s word regarding “natural” were about having sex between one man and one woman. This was the “natural.” We should not extrapolate to some practices between a married couple.

• Second. A “simple” kiss between homosexuals is “unnatural”

• Third. When the footnote mention the possibility-likelihood that some practices were originally practiced only by homosexuals, the writer is emitting an opinion. You see, no scripture sustains this affirmation.  Homosexuals also kiss and hug each other, and not for this reason should avoid the matrimonies kissing and hugging in our relationship.

I’m afraid regarding this matter of “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony is happening something similar when we refused the transplants as a form of cannibalism. We “charged” excessively the meaning of some verse, in this case, Gen 9:2-4. I reproduce next paragraphs:

• ·        *** w67 11/15 p. 702 Questions From Readers *** When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us. Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6.

As we see, the writer of the article quotes Genesis with a basic idea: God allowed humans eating animal flesh. Now, the verse is “charged”: so, as no mention about eating human flesh in the verses, this is abhorrent and forbidden. But this idea, in spite all sane people agree with, is not scriptural.

Thus, years later was a “discharge” of the meaning of Genesis.

• ·        *** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals [this was our former view, the “charged verse”] […] Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. […] It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. […]  While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

 

I love this kind of reasoning from the GB! I find it so humble! The Bible doesn’t directly mention this matter. The basic principle in Gen. is to eat animal flesh. Any derivation from the basic principle is up to each individual.

By the way, do you find horrible eating human flesh? Me too. But if someone allows be transplanted with an organ (eating this organ as we used to say) I respect his position. In the same way, perhaps you and I share the same view regarding the proper sexual behavior in our matrimonies, and we find disgusting some practices, right. But if other married couple opine in a different way I don’t see myself with the authority to “charge” some verses to make these persons view the matters as I see.

Melinda, I voted you favorably. We don’t share completely the same view, but your points are very valid and respectable!

[ComfortMyPeople]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

The word “obey” is as powerful as, “breathe” when a woman gives birth, or “stop” when a loved one sees peril awaits us.  How many times are the sheep told to obey, have obedience -  to the elders and the GB? “Listen, obey, and be blessed”.  This is, on the surface, implying obedience to God; but the reality is obedience to the elders who run the organization, teaching very young ones to be “company men”.

There will be a change in the organization.  The GB will be booted out

Witness. I find that your views reflect an intense desire that God’s will were done. It is easily perceived from your comments you don’t find the GB is in good standing in the eyes of God.

I can understand your fear, because Jesus himself pointed out this very possibility when he mentions the evil slave, the foolish virgins, the wicked slave and others. So, the possibility exits, other way, why this waste of time talking about something hypothetical with no meaning.

In spite of this, if this would happen, this is not my job to punish these brothers, to reveal against them. It would be a matter between the Master and them. I’ve identified God’s people. I belong to this people. This people has, logically, persons with authority, local (elders) and worldwide (GB). And there is scriptural base to obey these persons with Christian authority:

• ·        (Hebrews 13:17) “Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.”

Please, witness, take note of these ideas:

• ·        Some persons would lead the congregations
• ·        We should be obedient to them
• ·        Do always the leaders would be right? No, because they “will render an account”. This expression implies the possibility of success and error, otherwise the verse only would say “they will receive a reward”
• ·        The result if we aren’t obedient: damage!

I have it clear. Our “core doctrines” as I like to say are wonderful. I’ve learnt the proper condition of dead persons and the hope of the resurrection. My neighbors believe in soul immortality and hell fire. I’ve learnt the correct relationship between Jesus and his father. Mi neighbors believe in Trinity. I believe in the future paradise. My neighbors believe God will destroy the Earth.

In my country had military conscription, but the teachings of the GB (based in the Bible) helped me to be neutral. I’ve faced some surgical interventions, and based in what I’ve learnt from GB I could keep respect to God’s law regarding blood.

Well, I have no time to write down a lot more of spiritual gems these brothers have helped me to discover, appreciate and live them.

Now, you mention some other teachings about the time of the end, 1914, the signal and so. Well, I don’t consider these doctrines are “core” or fundamentals. Paul himself made a difference about basic or “milk” doctrines and other more “advanced.”

See Witness, all teachings about the time of the end, I grant you the possibility that we, the JW, or the GB are completely wrong. But this would not change the basic and principal doctrine: to keep alert!

The former Bible Students keep alert in spite of very different beliefs that we have nowadays. If, in the future, all the “time of the end” understanding is changed, perfect! I hope so! I want so! But, believe me Witness, it would not change my life in the slightest. I would continue serving God with this people, under the GB trying to keep me alert.

 

 

 

[Melinda Mills]

Comfort, that reply was well written and I understood the reasoning - that it could be a conscience matter. Your language was excellent - I like the way you used "charge" and "discharge". I still don't subscribe to it but I appreciate your going to lengths to explain.

[Witness]

1 hour ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

But, believe me Witness, it would not change my life in the slightest. I would continue serving God with this people, under the GB trying to keep me alert.

What if there was a “place” where God’s refined people are, who leave all lies …

where instead of being led by the power of men, they leave it all behind and are led by God’s Holy Spirit?  Isa 2:22

Where worship is only in “spirit and truth”, and not through the work of men’s hands? 

Where faithful anointed ones have successfully gone through the “fire of affliction” and are blessed with truth?

Where the Marriage feast has begun and “10 men will grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man” Zech 8:23

This is where God’s people reside in a spiritual sense.  This is where “law will go out from Zion” Micah 4:2; Heb 8:10  How can the organization be Zion, when its teachers transgress God’s laws with falsehoods? 

If the GB were aware of God’s power, they would be aware of Truth and teach it.

"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.  I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.  But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." (1John2:20,21,26,27)

God’s ways are not our ways,  and NO LIE IS OF THE TRUTH. Every JW who can read scriptures should ask, is the organization the “truth”, when founded on lies and grown on lies?

God parted the Red Sea for his people to leave oppression and idolatry.

“Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Let My people go, that they may hold a feast to Me in the wilderness.’” Exod 5:1

 Today he “dries up the river of lies” allowing those who care to follow Christ fully, to walk across on the dry river bed and reach the Marriage Feast, “in the wilderness” and where the eagles have gathered.  Matt 22:9,10; Rev 16:12; 17:37; 12:14,6; 11:1-3; Luke 17:34-37

It is no longer a guessing game when we come under God’s Holy Spirit. 

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

We're all a bunch of screwballs but somehow Jehovah makes it all work.

Or, as someone said, 'it's amazing what Jehovah does with what he's got to work with.

But Melinda Mills is not a screwball because she could have taken offense when I chose a wrong word and did not.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

There is a VERY simple test that even a 5th Grader can do ........

 

Name ONE TIME, the society has ever been right about ANYTHING they prophesied, that is not opinion based.

Name ONE TYPOLOGY (type/antitype comparison) not exactly explained by the Bible, that the Society has made over the years that proved true.

.

 

 

 

[ComfortMyPeople]

10 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

There is a VERY simple test that even a 5th Grader can do ........

Name ONE TIME, the society has ever been right about ANYTHING they prophesied, that is not opinion based.

Name ONE TYPOLOGY (type/antitype comparison) not exactly explained by the Bible, that the Society has made over the years that proved true.

Hi JTRJr (by the way, I've decreased your font size, your comments fill all my screen!)

Direct answer 1: 0

Direct answer 2: 0

Perhaps, If we had been more humble... according the post's theme. 

I preffer expressions like "we arent' sure... several explanations are possible.. we need wait and see." These sound more humble. God bless the GB so they have the courage to move heaven and earth about our "time of the end" teachings.

 

 

 

[Anna]

22 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Finally, in my present congregation, on a shepherding visit to a Christian couple the wife told us (with some shame) that she was willing to (certain practice) with her husband, but she had heard that this was a sin and stopped. The matrimony had trouble since then.

I have heard of situations like this. Very sad.

With the kind of ambiguous information regarding what's "natural" and what's "un-natural" it can get confusing. Both you and Melinda have brought out good points. I remember the  ** tp chap. 13 pp. 149-151 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? that Melinda mentioned, and I recall not really being comfortable with some of the things it brought out. We studied the book shortly after I was married. Words like "sexual greed" "Sexual appetite" "uncleanness" in the context of marriage was confusing, at least to me. Including this sentence "It is true that husband and wife have a Scriptural right to engage in sexual relations with each other. "But does this mean that they can throw off all restraint? The fact that God’s Word urges all Christians to cultivate self-control argues against such a view." I had no idea what to make of that. It conjured up images of frigidness and constraint, instead of warmth as spontaneity. I am not saying that the writer was trying to convey such a negative image, but it left things too much to interpretation. What I mean by this is that the husband and wife could each interpret this differently, and then this could be a valid reason for driving a wedge between them especially if they were not very sexually compatible in the first place (it is fact that some people like sex more than others). And then if the married couple did engage in some acts which they believed were "un-natural", or if they thought they had "thrown off all restraint",  according to how they interpreted the admonition, then this could lead to a bad conscience, which is not a good situation to be in. It seems to me that too much emphasis was unnecessarily put on what happens in the bedroom in the aforementioned chapter of that book.

In contrast, this admonition is so much better:

23 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

*** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.”

How I interpreted that was that natural sexual intimacy is that which is between a husband and wife, and that kind of intimacy has no rules about kinds and limits a long as both partners treat each other with tenderness.....

But like I said, I have not noticed any more said about marital intimacies to the extent that it was in the past (60's 70s' 80's) and the above WT was the first after a long time and the style is completely different.  I am thinking that obviously you were not the only elder who encountered problems to do with marital intimacies among the congregation and that perhaps it was realized that these articles caused unnecessary and embarrassing situations, both for the married couple, and for the elders who were shepherding them. Why should elders be privy to what happens in a bedroom? Surely there are more important things to be concerned about...?

Just out of interest, how did you counsel the couple on the shepherding visit?