Il y a t-il des Témoins de Jéhovah sur MR?

Le thread etait deja chancelant quand Tozz a embarque avec son post anti Buddhism pro Islam.

No wait wait je vais te nettoyer le sable dans el vagin de suite; il me semble que c'est toi qui viens de parler d'islam dans un thread pas rapport.... ou j'ai parlé d'islam ? j'ai répondu au gars qui a demandé si les budhists avaient un historique d'exactions.

*J'aime bien ta façon de contaminer des threads en transportant des discussions d'un autre thread.
** Tu vas-tu me parler d'islamistes aussi si je te croise dans le thread What did you do to your VW/Audi today?
***You need to chill
 
Bon, reprenons le thread ou il a été perdu.

Il n'y a pas d'témoins de Jehovah sur MR finalement.


omfg

Oral & Anal Sex in Marriage

The Watchtower defines fornication to include oral and anal sex. As such, Jehovah's Witnesses are not to participate in oral or anal sex, even if married and both parties consent. If found out, the couple will be stripped of any privileges they hold in the congregation. They can be disfellowshipped for these practices if they refuse to stop participating in them. Though hard to imagine, Witnesses do admit to such practices due to being told to confess such "sins".

Oral or anal sex between married couples was classified as;

a disfellowshipping offence 1974
no longer a disfellowshipping offence 1978
once again a disfellowshipping offence 1983 ongoing

A disfellowshipping offence

Watchtower 2007 Oct 15 p.27
"Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 establish that God disapproves of both adultery and fornication (Greek, porneia). What does the latter include? The Greek term involves the use of the genital organs in either a natural or a perverted way with lewd intent. It includes all forms of illicit sexual relations outside of Scriptural marriage. So it includes oral sex, despite the fact that many teenagers around the world have been told or have come to the conclusion that oral sex is acceptable. True Christians do not guide their thinking and actions by the opinions of profitless talkers, and deceivers of the mind. (Titus 1:10) They hold to the higher standard of the Holy Scriptures. Rather than try to make excuses for oral sex, they understand that Scripturally it is fornication, porneia, and they train their conscience accordingly."

Correspondence Guidelines 2007 (revised 2011)
"Married Christians are included in the admonition to avoid "covetous sexual appetite." (1 Thess. 4:4-8) This involves showing proper restraint even during sexual relations, not resorting to unclean acts. Christians should always have a hatred for all perverted practices - homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, oral or anal sex, and the like."

Watchtower 1983 Mar 15 p.31
"What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mates enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage. Even though a believing mate is distressed by the situation, yet that ones endeavor to hold to Scriptural principles will result in a blessing from Jehovah. In such cases it may be helpful for the couple to discuss the problem frankly, bearing in mind especially that sexual relations should be honorable, wholesome, an expression of tender love. This certainly should exclude anything that might distress or harm ones mate.Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7.
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 from the congregation. Why?
Galatians 5:19-21 lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to ones being disqualified from Gods Kingdom. Among them are uncleanness (Greek, akatharsia, signifying filthiness, depravity, lewdness) and loose conduct (Greek, aselgeia, signifying licentiousness, wantonness, shameless conduct). Like porneia, these vices, when they become gross, can be grounds for disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation, but not for obtaining a Scriptural divorce. A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. Of course, a person with that attitude might even sink to committing porneia; then there would be a basis for a Scriptural divorce. How concerned all devoted Christians should be to avoid and war against all such works of the flesh!Galatians 5:24, 25."

True Peace (1986) p.150
"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"?"

Watchtower 2000 Nov 1 p.8
"What is meant by the word fornication? It comes from the Greek word porneia, which is sometimes used to apply to sexual relations between unmarried people. (1 Corinthians 6:9) Elsewhere, such as at Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, the term is broader in meaning and refers additionally to adultery, incest, and bestiality. Other sexual practices between individuals not married to each other, such as oral and anal sex and the sexual manipulation of another persons genitalia, can also be designated as porneia. All such practices are condemned either explicitly or by implication in God's Word."

Not a disfellowshipping offence

Watchtower 1978 Feb 15 pp.30-32
"Beyond these basic guidelines the Scriptures do not go and, hence, we cannot do more than counsel in harmony with what the Bible does say. In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship. 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. Of course, if any person chooses to approach an elder for counsel he or she may do so and the elder can consider Scriptural principles with such a one, acting as a shepherd but not attempting to, in effect, police the marital life of the one inquiring."

A disfellowshipping offence

Watchtower 1976 February 15 pp.122-3
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. But The Watchtower kept above this morass of filth by alerting married couples to God's thinking on the matter.

Watchtower 1974 Nov 15 p.704
"Do lewd practices on the part of a married person toward that ones own mate constitute a Scriptural basis for the offended mate to get a divorce? There are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a Scriptural divorce. Of course, the Holy Scriptures do not encourage divorce nor do they command the innocent party to divorce a mate who engages in adultery or gross sexual perversion. Regarding divorce, Jesus Christ stated: Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery. (Matt. 19:9) 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. Thus fornication is set forth as the only ground for divorce. In the common Greek in which Jesus words are recorded, the term fornication is pornei'a, which designates all forms of immoral sexual relations, perversions and lewd practices such as might be carried on in a house of prostitution, including oral and anal copulation. As to Jesus statements about divorce, they do not specify with whom the fornication or pornei'a is practiced. They leave the matter open. That pornei'a 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. This makes him guilty of pornei'a, for the related Greek verb porneu'o means to prostitute, debauch. Hence, circumstances could arise that would make lewd practices of a married person toward that ones marriage mate a Scriptural basis for divorce. For example, a wife may do what she reasonably can to prevent her husband from forcing upon her perversions such as are carried on in a brothel. Yet, due to his greater strength, he might overpower her and use her for perverted sex. So as not to be prostituted in this way at another time, a Chrstian wife may decide to get a divorce. She could establish with the congregation that the real reason for this is pornei'a and then proceed to get a legal divorce on any truthful grounds acceptable to the courts of the land. If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, neither mate would have a basis for claiming pornei'a as a Scriptural ground for divorce. This is so because neither party is innocent and seeking freedom from a mate guilty of pornei'a. 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. "

Watchtower 1969 12/15 pp.765-766
Some have contended, however, that absolutely anything done between husband and wife is permissible. However, that view is not supported in the Bible. In Romans 1:24-32, where it speaks of both men and women who participated in immoral sex practices, including lesbian and sodomite acts, the Bible mentions a “natural use of the female.” 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. This would also be true in connection with married couples; they should not pervert this “natural use of the female.” 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.”
 
Bon, reprenons le thread ou il a été perdu.

Il n'y a pas d'témoins de Jehovah sur MR finalement.

Correspondence Guidelines 2007 (revised 2011)
"Married Christians are included in the admonition to avoid "covetous sexual appetite." (1 Thess. 4:4-8) This involves showing proper restraint even during sexual relations, not resorting to unclean acts. Christians should always have a hatred for all perverted practices - homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, oral or anal sex, and the like."


omfg


Il ny a aucune religion monothéiste qui a de la sympathie pour l'homosexualité.
 
Il ny a aucune religion monothéiste qui de la sympathie pour l'homosexualité.
Dude even Mormon chicks take it up the ass. Haven't you ever been in Utah or Huntington?

Sent with a Russian Apple using Crapatalk
 
No wait wait je vais te nettoyer le sable dans el vagin de suite; il me semble que c'est toi qui viens de parler d'islam dans un thread pas rapport.... ou j'ai parlé d'islam ? j'ai répondu au gars qui a demandé si les budhists avaient un historique d'exactions.

*J'aime bien ta façon de contaminer des threads en transportant des discussions d'un autre thread.
** Tu vas-tu me parler d'islamistes aussi si je te croise dans le thread What did you do to your VW/Audi today?
***You need to chill

Arrete de jouer a victime c'est toi qui a poster une photo du times fessant part d'un part d'un idiot religieiux anti-islam... donc pour etre franc c toi qui a parler d'islam en premier.
 
hey^

tu n'as pas encore saisi que ce n'est jamais la faute des musulmans et c'est un peuple d'incompris.
Ce n'est jamais de leur faute et toujours de la faute aux autres
 
Moi, je suis témoin de Lucifer.

La preuve: j'écoute de la musique du Diable et j'ai des mœurs très légères.




et celui qui est à gauche sur cette photom'a servi plusieurs rhum&coke

130324_tokyo_decadance_bar_shinjuku_drag_queen_pol  e_dancing_club_2.jpg
 
hey^

tu n'as pas encore saisi que ce n'est jamais la faute des musulmans et c'est un peuple d'incompris.
Ce n'est jamais de leur faute et toujours de la faute aux autres

Il va surement repondre qu'il ne la pas ecrit directement et que je suis de mauvaise foi.
 
J'aimerais bien voir une cause d'un adulte devant les tribunaux.

Admettons le cas suivant:

Un témoin de Jéhovah se blesse/se fait agresser/a un accident/ etc. Il est envoyé à l'hôpital où on DOIT lui faire une transfusion sinon il va mourir. Le gars refuse et meurt.

Est-ce que la personne responsable de l'accident/agression/négligence sera accusée au criminel par rapport à la mort du témoin de Jéhovah? (meutre, conduite dangeureuse ayant causé la mort, négligence criminelle causant la mort, etc).

J'imagine que la réponse est OUI mais en même temps, c'est de la faute au gars qui a refusé les traitements.

C'est à la couronne de prouver que c'est l'accident directement qui a mené à la mort. Selon moi, si le dude survit avec une transfusion mais qu'il refuse, sa mort n'est pas causé directement par l'accident.
 
Arrete de jouer a victime c'est toi qui a poster une photo du times fessant part d'un part d'un idiot religieiux anti-islam... donc pour etre franc c toi qui a parler d'islam en premier.

Really? Les gars est ce que vous savez vraiment prendre une question et lui répondre dans son contexte? Tu le dit toi même j'ai fait part d'un idiot religieux point.... j'ai parlé de l'idiot religieux pas de l'islam.... qu'est ce qui est compliqué la ?


Le gars a poser une question sur les boudhistes qui a pas de rapport avec le sujet c correct ça passe ça ...J'ai répondu à une question avec un contenu sur un boudhiste extrémiste. Point à la ligne.

Maintenant tout ce que vous avez retenu c'est le contenu sur l'islam et ça, vous fait gerber... c'est votre problème ça.


C'est un thread sur les adeptes de Jéhovah alors restant dans le sujet svp.


Cordialement,




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On es-tu vraiment obligé de poster un video de George Calin dans chaque discussion.

Genre, on l'a vu l'esti de vidéo.

En fucking 2009.

Dans chaque discussion? Ça depend. J'ai pensé le mettre dans la discussion sur les collections de montres mais je ne voyais pas le rapport...
 
Dans chaque discussion? Ça depend. J'ai pensé le mettre dans la discussion sur les collections de montres mais je ne voyais pas le rapport...

Je vais demander à Dannyitr si c'est possible de juste carrément le poster dans chaque thread automatiquement.
 
Back
Top