Jump to content
The World News Media

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


Srecko Sostar
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
19 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

And they almost certainly read websites like JWSurvey, JWFacts, etc. I believe they even sued one. They have an awareness of what critics are saying.

It would seem that way, because as you say, they sued one.This was because its publisher was posting things he had no copyrights to. Plus, it's easy to be aware of what critics are saying about you through notification settings for key words. I am sure some of us use, or have used, that application too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 3.2k
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

I think you have a pretty good sense of the continuing effect based on specific examples, although there are others, too. Unfortunately an effect that might be more pervasive, but less tangible, is an

Wikipedia: "For instance, in the United Kingdom, adultery is not a criminal offense, but is a ground for divorce,  with the legal definition of adultery being "physical contact with an alien and unlaw

Posted Images

  • Member
9 minutes ago, Anna said:

t would seem that way, because as you say, they sued one.This was because its publisher was posting things he had no copyrights to.

It is interesting. They sued those apostates for using "spiritual food" without copyrights permission.

How about JHVH copyrights ownership on truth, love, justice, thoughts, feelings, words ....water, food, air...

Again, WT is Company and because this reason they sued people for using their printed and electronic material. But main reason for WT suing them is revealed facts that expose WT "wrongs" about Biblical subjects and every day  living. In fact disputable matters are in theological sphere in first place. And then comes other items in connection on corporative and structural functioning in hierarchy  of WT. Regarding using of this secular world, money, policy, politic ...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 "Started with satan"?. WT not started in those time when satan started. Why you need to made this comparison?     

It's simple. I am not making a comparison. It's irrelevant when WT started, it doesn't change anything about the fact that the reason why we have such horrible things as child sexual abuse going on in the first place is because Satan was the originator of those things. People who want to please God will avoid those kinds of things. Not just child sexual abuse but ANY kind of sexual acts condemned by God, including sex between people who are not married to each other.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

it is quite confusing and weird that God with such high moral standards and tools for helping people, did not make better progress in his own organization regarding this issue,

You are mistaken, we have ALWAYS had the higher moral ground, right since our start. Have you not noticed the world’s permissive attitude towards sex? In fact I read an article recently about how pedophilia might be recognized as a “sexual orientation” one day. So perhaps adding another letter to the LGBTIQ  (lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender, intersex, and queer) it seems the  list is getting longer each day. With God, there is only one sexual orientation, it’s called heterosexual, and that’s the only one Jehovah’s Witnesses go with. Not only that, but also only when they are legally married to each another (otherwise they are heterosexual celibates).  With Satan, there are many options, and the world is embracing them all.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

And He left to "social and scientific evolution/revolution of satans world to be progressive force that helping WT aga Gods organization to make "positive changes" in congregational structure regard policy and spiritual awareness of this problem  :)))    

If you have read any of the secular articles about child sexual molestation, you will have seen that the biggest problem has been that victims never spoke up. And on the rare occasions that they did, they were rarely believed, or it was already too late to change anything, and there wasn't any means by which to change anything (there were no provisions made for a perpetrator to be tried in a court of law) I am talking about the world, the governments. That is why Prof. B. J Cling says that;  "The institutionalization of child maltreatment interventions in federally funded centers, national and international societies, and a host of research studies (in which the United States continues to lead the world) offers grounds for cautious optimism. Nevertheless, as Judith Herman argues cogently, 'The systematic study of psychological trauma...depends on the support of a political movement.'

Do you think Jehovah's Witnesses were not impacted also by the lack of civil support? Can you really see some little girl who was molested by her father causing a ruckus about it in those days? And if she did, would her father have gone to prison? You know the answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Anna said:

reasoning in the 1972 WT was a blunder, a mistake

Probably just following the 1971 nonsense in the Aid to Bible Understanding. p460. (Who wrote that?)

The mistake appears to have been corrected in the Watchtower by 15/12/72  (page 768) when it is stated " that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·neiʹa or “fornication” in the Bible sense."

Also, "Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. 
"  (Who wrote that?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
51 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:
2 hours ago, Anna said:

reasoning in the 1972 WT was a blunder, a mistake

Probably just following the 1971 nonsense in the Aid to Bible Understanding. p460. (Who wrote that?)

The mistake appears to have been corrected in the Watchtower by 15/12/72  (page 768) when it is stated " that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·neiʹa or “fornication” in the Bible sense."

Also, "Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. 
"  (Who wrote that?)

@JW Insider is the one to ask I think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

 

Probably just following the 1971 nonsense in the Aid to Bible Understanding. p460.

The mistake appears to have been corrected in the Watchtower by 15/12/72 

Well spotted on both counts! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Wikipedia: "For instance, in the United Kingdom, adultery is not a criminal offense, but is a ground for divorce,  with the legal definition of adultery being "physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ"

That seems to cover everything quite well.  Even sex with Aliens.

However, true to the fact, as J.R posted,  apparently same sex infidelity is not adultery.

http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
30 minutes ago, tromboneck said:

What century are you living in?

The Aid Book was the primary Bible study reference for all JWs until 1988, 29 years ago, but I'm guessing that 90% of the original articles stayed the same even in the Insight Book that replaced it in 1988. I'm sure there are people still alive whose marriages were broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. And perhaps there are some who are still alive who were disfellowshipped and should not have been, and some that should have been disciplined and were not, resulting in injustice. The basic issues and definitions that were once wrong on this topic were fixed relatively quickly, but this alone does not resolve the stress and loss and injustice that some suffered due to the short-lived "gaffe" in the Watchtower. The Bible acknowledges that injustice can have a bad effect not only on the person but even on their children and grandchildren.

I can't speak for J.R.Ewing JR, but I'd say you might have misunderstood the reason he presented the material he presented. I think he's one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that he was trying to defend the morality of JWs, both historically and currently. He was not, imo, trying to promote a non-Witness idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.