Do homosexual acts on the part of a married person constitute a Scriptural ground for divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?

[Srecko Sostar]

This is real controversy. But just one among many that came from Watchtower GB spiritual food table. JW living in "spiritual paradise" under rules like this one. :(( 

Questions from readers - WT magazine January 1 1972

Do homosexual acts on the part of a married
person constitute a Scriptural ground for
divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?
—U.S.A.
Homosexuality is definitely condemned in the Bible as something that will prevent individuals from gaining God’s approval. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10)
However, whether an innocent mate would Scripturally be able to remarry after procuring a legal divorce from a mate guilty of homosexual
acts must be determined on the basis of what the Bible says respecting divorce and remarriage.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ said: “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for
adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt. 5:32) On a later occasion he told the Pharisees: “Whoever divorces
his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." —Matt. 19:9.
Thus “fornication" is seen to be the only ground for divorce that frees the innocent mate to remarry. The Greek word for fornication is porneia.
It can refer to illicit sexual relations between either married or unmarried persons. The ancient Greeks, in rare instances, may have understood
this term to denote acts other than illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. But the sense in which Jesus used the word porneia at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9
must be ascertained from the context.
It should be noted that in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 “fornication" is used in the restricted sense of marital unfaithfulness, or illicit relations with another person not one’s marriage mate. Just before bringing up the matter of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ pointed out that “everyone [married] that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28)
Consequently, when he afterward alluded to a woman’s committing fornication, his listeners would have understood this in its relative sense, namely, as signifying a married woman’s prostitution or adultery.
The context of Matthew chapter 19 confirms this conclusion. On the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus pointed out that a man and his wife became “one flesh,” and then added: “What God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matt. 19:5, 6) Now, in homosexual acts the sex organs are used in an unnatural way, in a way for which they were never purposed. Two persons of the same sex are not complements of each other, as Adam and Eve were. They could never become “one flesh”־ in order to procreate. It might be added, in the case of human copulation with a beast, two different kinds of flesh are involved.

Wrote the apostle Paul: “Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.1— ״ Cor. 15:39. While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

This is why in my considerations, reasonings and arguments, I try to use scriptures as little as possible ... as in the movie "Deliverance" you can have "dueling banjos", in the movie "Theology", you can have "dueling scriptures".

When I first came to the Truth circa 1960, I did so because it was reasonable, rational, and true ... but to be fair to myself, I never imagined situations like this, much less any questions and answers where the answers were COMPLETELY DIVORCED from any common sense whatsoever ....

How much very real damage did this cause?  And, for how many years ... and to how many TENS OF THOUSANDS of Brothers and Sisters who had faith in the Governing Body who WERE BETRAYED BY THIS CRAP?

After this ... how can we have faith that ANYTHING they say is the correct application of scripture?  Next thing you know ... they would be saying that "abstain from blood" means you can take 99% of blood as blood fractions if you felt it was O.K., or that the generation that Jesus talked about was two OVERLAPPING generations ... or that this system will all be over by 1975 ... or that ( in the 1989 Awake) four years of Education would not be a good use of the remaining time left.

Here are two quotes that have always been true, and will always be true.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_110340

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."   -  Abraham Lincoln

" The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."  -   Marcus Aurelius

UNFORTUNATELY  Jehovah's Witnesses are the only true religion on Earth today, and the best I have been able to ascertain there is no other Congregation of God.

That does not mean we are OBLIGATED to be blind, ignorant, and stupid, and not have a clue as to reality the way it really is.

The following is a Parody of the exact way that the people that govern us think .... if it wasn't so funny, it would be unbearably sad ... as the destructive real life example given above was.

                                                         QUESTIONS FROM READERS

Are Cats For True Christians?

Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light? -J.R., U.S.A.

It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple ‘Yes’ or a ‘No.’ The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a ‘qualified’ one, and it is easy to see why.

Many conscientious ones among Jehovah’s people today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat sordid symbolic history and the many health risks associated therewith. While we would not wish to state an opinion on what must remain a matter of personal preference, what is acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another.

This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother away from the path of Christ’s ransom sacrifice is tantamount to ‘putting a millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.’ -Matt. 18:6. Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed.

First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term ‘cat’. When analyzed with the Latin ‘felis cattus domesticus’, the original Koine Greek is ‘cur.io huma bes-tia’, means ‘a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.’ A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being ‘beastly’.

The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan’s organizations, both past and present. For instance, consider the fearsome ‘beasts’ as described in the book of Daniel or the ‘scarlet colored wild beast’ in Rev. 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control to which a Christian may be potentially exposed. Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God’s enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God’s Holy word would ask – is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a ‘beast’ of the field? Hardly so!

Clearly, the Bible – by using this kind of terminology – shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become evil or ‘beastlike’ since the fall of Adam six thousand years ago, and more probably, since the Great Flood of Noah’s time (c2350 B.C.E.).

This is a development of the condition borne by the ‘Original Serpent’, the ‘Great Dragon’ Lucifer himself. (Gen. 3:1) Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited ‘theory’ of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).

There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use his Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider, then, the following facts:

It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as ‘gods’. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and sacrifices were made to them.

As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic Law, but also the ‘necessary things,’ identified by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to include the following edict: ‘(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols’. We are to ‘guard ourselves from idols’ and ‘worship no other gods’. Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby ‘grieve Jehovah’s Spirit’ with tragic consequences.

May we never take for granted Jehovah’s wise and generous counsel brought to you by your spiritual brothers in the pages of this magazine!

The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod’s birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of. Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how true are the Bible’s words: ‘Bad associations spoil useful habits’! -1 Cor. 15:33.

Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual contamination in this way. To invite cats in our house is to toy with disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave consequences could visit your home that fell upon John?

Clearly, God disapproved of this ‘birthday’ party. Should we not then disapprove (without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way the scriptures recommend?

Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax in the Salem Witch trials of the seventeenth century, cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain within the public psyche, and involvement with them reflects poorly on God’s footstools and footstep followers.

Many pagan faiths still conclude that black cats bring ill-luck and possess demonic forces, while we have shown that it is, instead, all cats that share these perceived characteristics.

Since cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated servants of God therefore contaminate ourselves by exposure to a ‘living symbol’ of satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God’s name and that of his visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be linked with a symbol of Satan, the ‘god of this beastly system of things’?

The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is any species (‘kind’) of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians? Jehovah Himself ‘stopped up the mouths of the lions’ (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel’s day.

True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions, but being of the same accursed animal family used by God’s enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history?

The Bible makes clear that God’s people are ‘no part of this world’ (John 15:19) and that we are ‘not to share in the sins of others’, consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or ‘candy’ bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.

The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil. And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth. The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit. While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master – Satan, the Devil.

The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God’s favor himself owned a cat.

Should we simply assume that this is a mere coincidence? Surely not!

This was most likely because they didn’t want to be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.

But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view.

Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that ‘Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans’. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of ‘week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.’

Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our ‘neighbor’ by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers, and by those showing an interest in God’s word, as giving a good witness?

Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor, vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, even orgiastic practices, substance abuse of catnip (an intoxicating herb) which produces conditions akin to drunkenness, stealing food from the table, producing ungodly sounds, excessive playfulness and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus, the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night, and so on. What sort of example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that ‘neither fornicators .. nor thieves .. nor drunkards .. nor revilers .. will inherit the Kingdom.’ (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer. It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17). But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God’s sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29).

In an earlier article in The Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under one’s jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one’s cat to roam uncontrolled, the Christian becomes a willing party to, even a conspirator within, this serious breach of God’s law of life.

In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to ‘quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].’ -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats.

Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.

Of course, while demonstrating one’s obedience to God’s lovingly-issued commandments, one must do so without any spirit of meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, though they represent God’s enemies. Instead, mature Christians ‘feel a loathing’ toward those, including cats, who have voluntarily or otherwise made themselves God’s enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.

Are we not grateful for this insight on God’s viewpoint regarding such matters? True worshipers follow closely God’s mandates on cleanness to their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia, U.S.A. tells us that since getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the litter box or wasting valuable time better spent pursuing kingdom interests with the burden of purchasing cat food.

This has allowed her to become a full-time pioneer; she finds that it is now easier to meet her allotted hours in field service. Godwin, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts it this way: ‘I’m so grateful that God’s organization is kept clean! It has freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the disciple-making work.’ (Matt. 24:14). What fine examples of faithfulness!

The question of how to dispose of one’s unwanted cat is a serious matter. Would it be proper to hand over such a creature of Satan to a person of the world? We see no immediate problem with this, as such a person is already immersed in the wicked ways of this system of things, and so a beastly companion would be a fitting one indeed. They could accompany each other on the road to destruction, through ignoring God’s generous gift of life proffered via His spirit-begotten earthly organization.

It is on this same sound principle that a Christian doctor would have no reason to deny blood transfusions to a worldly patient. If, on the other hand, one took the view stated on page 128 of the above mentioned Watchtower, and consider that the pet or any other animal is under the ultimate jurisdiction of a Christian, who therefore bears responsibilities (Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17, 1 Pet. 3:21) that are essentially parental in nature.

The cat is a dependent. In harmony with this, surely it is the parent’s obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy. Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas.

This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as man made law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans. God’s soldiers would be mindful to apply, where the case merited it and local custom did not prohibit it, the principle of Deut. 21:18-21 which states that: ‘In case a man happens to have a [dependent] who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his [guardian], and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his [guardian] must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, ‘This [dependent] of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.’ The mature follower of Jehovah will do well to be reminded of God’s advice in page 503 of The Watchtower of November 15, 1952 where it was held that ‘In the case where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? .. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine.

‘Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, .. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.’ -Deut. 13:6-11, AS.’ Of course, we can take no legal responsibility for anything which results from your voluntary application of your interpretation of such Biblical principles as you may believe that we have brought to your attention.

As loyal followers of Jehovah’s thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system, the incoming theocracy and World Order, the ‘lion will lie down with the lamb’ -Isa. 11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the ‘beastly’ nature of felines will be forever abolished, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth! But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit expressed through the loving guidance of the ‘faithful and discreet slave’. -Matt. 24:45-47

                                                                                           -------

" The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."  -   Marcus Aurelius

 

Even Jesus, Joseph, and Mary escaped to Egypt for awhile ... during the "crazy years".

[Srecko Sostar]

24 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed.

:)))) this is so  ... - this explanation about cats, ohhh boy

thanks James

God blessed you!

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate.

This is just unadulterated Rubbish! It does not matter where it originates!

Jesus said: (1st Century):

Matthew 5:32: "everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality (porneia), makes her a subject for adultery"

Matthew 19:9: "whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another commits adultery"

Jehovah's Witnesses said (1988):

Insight from the Scriptures (1988) v1 p642:

"Sexually immoral acts committed by a married person with someone of the same sex (homosexuality) are filthy and disgusting. Unrepentant persons of this type will not inherit God’s Kingdom. And, of course, bestiality is Scripturally condemned. (Le 18:22, 23; Ro 1:24-27; 1Co 6:9, 10) These grossly filthy acts come under the broad designation por·neiʹa. It is also noteworthy that, under the Mosaic Law, homosexuality and bestiality carried the death penalty, freeing the innocent mate for remarriage.—Le 20:13, 15, 16."

It is also worth remembering what Paul said to Timothy at 1 Timothy 1:9-10: "recognizing that law is made, not for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, ungodly and sinners, disloyal and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, sexually immoral people, men who practice homosexuality, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and everything else that is in opposition to the wholesome teaching"

Regardless of the statistical assaults of determined mudslingers, I would venture that, for the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, grappling with definitions of fornication and what constitutes permissable extremes of sexual deviancy has not been at the top of their list of after-party small talk topics. I would also hazard a guess that, over the years, many of those charged with spirtual guidance and shepherding responsibilities would have been fairly naive in these matters also. (This is relected in historical discussions on such subjects. See the 1970's references quoted above). 

Now, (2017), there is an ever-escalating need to re-evaluate and become educated in these matters, in a non-prurient context, within the congregation. Contributing to this are: 

• the escalation of sexual immorality in the world at large,
• the large numbers of "skinned and thrown about" sheep-like ones coming into the organisation
• the determined assault of opportunist predators on the true Christian congregation, seeing it as a victim pool
• the determined attempts of society to sexualise at a younger and younger age,
• the increasing institutional abandonment of scriptural norms of sexual behaviour,
• the institutional abandonment of traditional gender definition and roles,
• the growing preoccupation with sexual activity and experimentation,
• the saturation of all media with sexually oriented behaviour and images
• the glorification of sexual abnormality in the entertainment world
• the globalisation of uncensored pornographic media due to internet penetration......
• You can add what ever you like to this list.

As far as I can see, that re-evaluation and educational program is in place and is progressing effectively in the opposite direction, but, you had better believe it..... We are at war!

Eph.6:12: "we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places."

 

 

[Anna]

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 

That does not mean we are OBLIGATED to be blind, ignorant, and stupid, and not have a clue as to reality the way it really is.

 

So on the basis of that, and having thought the matter thoroughly through, I have decided there is no scriptural basis not to own a cat.

Ours is a cute one year old tabby.

And James, you really must stop visiting those apostate sites. You are not doing yourself any favors.

 

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

This is just unadulterated Rubbish! It does not matter where it originates!

Unfortunately it originates in the WT magazine January 1 1972 - This evidently is one of the gaffes. I am not sure, but I have a feeling this may have been written or approved by Raymond Franz. @JW Insider may know better. In any case, I have not seen or heard about this since....

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I think The "Cats" Watchtower Article Parody is VERY funny, and a very good parody of a very, VERY real problem, therefore valuable as an awareness teaching tool for those who are not clueless.

Someone I know here recently stated that she was interested in TRUTH, no matter what the source.

The Society has not uttered a single word in its publications about the JW global pedophile scandals, except for GB Member Stephen Lett declaring in 2015 that they [[ edited: the accusation that the Society protected pedophiles ]] were all "apostate lies", just before the Australian Royal Commission on Child Abuse No. 29 Hearings disclosed a 50 year history of 1006 perpetrators on over 5,000 incidents, that were subpoenaed from the Australian  Branch Office and Kingdom Hall sealed and secret  files.

[[edited: By keeping everything secret, in sealed special blue envelopes at the Australian Branch, and in the Kingdom Hall files, neither the Brotherhood, or the community at large was protected, by protecting the Society's polished public image ... by protecting these pedophiles from criminal prosecution by civil authorities.]]

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

DUH ! Of COURSE it does .... except in Fantasyland, where a million words repeated year after year can obscure reality for those with no critical thinking skills .... deliberately dulled by those same millions and millions of  words.

Did you know that before man ... there

were actually Dinosaur Kingdom Halls!?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

..wait for it ...... wait for it....

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Unfortunately it originates in the WT magazine January 1 1972 - This evidently is one of the gaffes.

Does it really matter? It is garbage wherever it comes from, grandiose claims or not. This proverb is true for everyone you know: 

"When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided, but whoever controls his lips acts discreetly. Pro.10:19

Perhaps that is another reason why we are cutting back on the amount of printed material?

It has been said that of the average 2000 - 3000 words a man speaks in a day perhaps 500 -700 or 25% of them are of any value. Let's use the lower figures and say then from 15 to 65, he speaks 9,125,000 words of any value in his life that no one remembers.

Jehovah, who knows everything of value, has chosen to record 783,137 words in the last 6000 odd years, mostly indirectly communicated, but every word 100% of value. 

I'll let someone else do the math on WT published words in the last 138 years. I think JTR has estimated 15% of it of any value, which is actually a bit under par.

Why worry about mistakes as if we didn't expect them? When we have the word of God?

[Noble Berean]

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This is real controversy. But just one among many that came from Watchtower GB spiritual food table. JW living in "spiritual paradise" under rules like this one. :(( 

Questions from readers - WT magazine January 1 1972

Do homosexual acts on the part of a married
person constitute a Scriptural ground for
divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?
—U.S.A.
Homosexuality is definitely condemned in the Bible as something that will prevent individuals from gaining God’s approval. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10)
However, whether an innocent mate would Scripturally be able to remarry after procuring a legal divorce from a mate guilty of homosexual
acts must be determined on the basis of what the Bible says respecting divorce and remarriage.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ said: “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for
adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt. 5:32) On a later occasion he told the Pharisees: “Whoever divorces
his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." —Matt. 19:9.
Thus “fornication" is seen to be the only ground for divorce that frees the innocent mate to remarry. The Greek word for fornication is porneia.
It can refer to illicit sexual relations between either married or unmarried persons. The ancient Greeks, in rare instances, may have understood
this term to denote acts other than illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. But the sense in which Jesus used the word porneia at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9
must be ascertained from the context.
It should be noted that in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 “fornication" is used in the restricted sense of marital unfaithfulness, or illicit relations with another person not one’s marriage mate. Just before bringing up the matter of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ pointed out that “everyone [married] that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28)
Consequently, when he afterward alluded to a woman’s committing fornication, his listeners would have understood this in its relative sense, namely, as signifying a married woman’s prostitution or adultery.
The context of Matthew chapter 19 confirms this conclusion. On the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus pointed out that a man and his wife became “one flesh,” and then added: “What God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matt. 19:5, 6) Now, in homosexual acts the sex organs are used in an unnatural way, in a way for which they were never purposed. Two persons of the same sex are not complements of each other, as Adam and Eve were. They could never become “one flesh”־ in order to procreate. It might be added, in the case of human copulation with a beast, two different kinds of flesh are involved.

Wrote the apostle Paul: “Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.1— ״ Cor. 15:39. While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate.

This hasn't been the attitude in the org for a LONG time. They revised the Bible translation to make it crystal clear. Sexual immorality breaks the marriage bond.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

It has ALWAYS been crystal clear to anyone with the SLIGHTEST bit of common sense !!!

 

 

 

 

When the Nazis show up in an Indiana Jones Movie, even the dullest know who in the plot the "bad guys" are.