Open minded bible student

Ottawa, Canada

#382 Jul 16, 2012
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't make it perverted, though, does it?
Sorry for delayed response...

In my opinion I dont find it perverted... Others might however...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#383 Jul 16, 2012
hMMMMM wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such directive.
As there is no directive not to salute the flag, celebrate holidays, vote, serve in the military,go to a kingdumb hall for meetings 5x a week, or sell magazines 10 hours a month.
Nothing about the JWs is based on the Bible.
hMMM~

If there is no scriptural reason, then what is the non-scriptural reason?

Corinthian
jake sully

UK

#384 Jul 16, 2012
If they are practicing jehovahs witnesses they'll probably know up the bum is condemned in the bible but like anything its a conscience thing and also a poo thing
hMMMM

Aurora, IL

#385 Jul 16, 2012
PaulWroteToMe wrote:
<quoted text>
hMMM~
If there is no scriptural reason, then what is the non-scriptural reason?
Corinthian
Control, nothing else
hMMMM

Aurora, IL

#386 Jul 16, 2012
Open minded bible student wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed 100%
If a married couple wants to have oral, anal, hand cuffs, ect... Thats their business...
Business that should never be discussed with their children present.
This is NOT age-appropriate sexual education.
For crying out loud I don't want to know what my parents do sexually and I am a grown women.
This kind of discussion, and believe me it is discussed at the kingdumb hall, should NEVER be discussed with children FORCED to sit and listen.
This is for married couples only, in a setting like the kingdumb hall, where pre-marital sex is supposedly forbidden.
There is not one advantage for a child to know that anal sex is considered "perverted", not one.
Any small child that has any knowledge of anal sex, is being sexually abused.
It is NOT talked about at the playground, like JWs love to lie.
Sure, 3year old Johnny is going to discuss with 4 year old Susie, the perversions of his parents liking anal sex!
Ridiculous!
If I hear a child discussing something sexual like this, that is our of the realm of norm for their age, I am required by the State to report a possible abuse case!
No wonder there is such a problem with sexual abuse of children in the cult!

“BIBLE TRUTHS *NEVER* CHANGE”

Since: Aug 09

LET GO AND LET GOD

#387 Jul 16, 2012
jake sully wrote:
The not wearing pants thing is the biggest steaming pile of horseshit I've ever heard in my life
In the early 1970's, during a cold MA winter, and after the wife of the Presiding Overseer wore a very nice and modest pantsuit...the rest of us sisters began to do the same. Not one wore jeans, but wore fashionable pantsuits with a "dressy" blouse.....never even thinking we were doing anything to be "displeasing jehovah".

After a short period of time....an elder read a letter from the platform during the Service Meeting...a letter from WTS HQs....informing us that pantsuits would no longer be allowed or considered as "appropriate attire". It really annoyed many of us to hear this....but being the good little OBEDIENT ROBOTS that we were.....and as unfair as this was....we complied with the latest orders from Brooklyn NY.

There WAS and still IS NOT....any scriptural support given to the ludicrous personal opinions that the WTS pompously issues from "on high" and coming from their tower.
jace

Clinton, MD

#388 Jul 16, 2012
Gods Kingdom Rules"

" What complete and utter nonsense."

"You are making up a scenario that wasn't covered by any watchtower at all."

"You wouldn't of been able to consent to the act but tell your other half your unhappy that you are both sinning like this. That would of been no basis for a divorce at all."""

February 15, 1978 Watchtower
Pages 31-32

"If a married person believes that the sexual practices of the mate, though not involving someone outside the marriage, are nevertheless of such a gross nature as to constitute a clear surrender to lewdness or a debauching in lewdness, then that must be his or her own decision and responsibility.

Such a one may hold that the circumstances provide Scriptural basis for divorce.

If so, he or she must accept full responsibility before God for any divorce action that might be taken. Elders cannot be expected to express approval (Scripturally) of divorce, if they are not sure of the grounds. At the same time they are not authorized to impose their conscience on another when the matter is a questionable one.(Jas. 4:11, 12) Having expressed what Scriptural counsel they find fitting, they can then make clear to the one involved the seriousness of the matter and the full responsibility that must rest upon him or her if divorce action is taken."

@@@@@@@

what most jw who have never had anything to do with judical matters don't know-- is many aricles- as well as examples cited during elders schools, calls to the service dept etc are often based on various articles such as the above

a female who felt she was being presured to commit the sin of oral sex was able to obtain divorce on those grounds

note what the wt call these sexual methods:

"Such a one may hold that the circumstances provide Scriptural basis for divorce."

yes the wt taught that a person could decide for themselves if it was "Scriptural basis for divorce."

see our dear jw is arguing the "CIRCUMSTANANCES" whereBY the WT editorial staff ALLOWED DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF ORAL SEX

when in FACT there were NO GROUNDS FOR ORAL SEX between married couples for divorce and remarrying

the poor poster has missed the entire point that wt created it own circumstances which the bible didn't

and the poor poster has spent tons of post arguing

the society ONLY ALLOWED RAPE- WHEN I FACT the bible didn't allow any divorce and remarriage on the grounds of how person makes love to their mate

so we provided the quote that shows that rape was not the only grounds, if the poor jw felt:

"If a married person believes that the sexual practices of the mate, though not involving someone outside the marriage, are nevertheless of such a gross nature as to constitute a clear surrender to lewdness or a debauching in lewdness, then that must be his or her own decision and responsibility.

Such a one may hold that the circumstances provide Scriptural basis for divorce."

and this covered the example i cited

before i left the org i went back to bethel to talk to men who i viewed as mentors and this issue along with others were discussed whereby the Society just created stuff out of thin air , enforced it with dfing and then said upon reversal:

*** w83 3/15 Honor Godly Marriage!***

"Those who acted on the basis of the (asinine and goofy info we provided) knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized."

" Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried."

##########

you get folks to believe their divorce is legit and then when it ain' you tell them DON'T WORRY ABOUT

ALL FROM UNINSPIRED WRITERS

“"Leave the dead horses alone"”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#389 Jul 16, 2012
UNchained wrote:
UNchained wrote:
30 years ago that sister went to the brothers and told them her husband wanted her to perform oral sex on him and he called them everything but children of God and told them to mind their own damn bizness, got DF'd and she divorced him and then remarried with the blessings of the Watchtower Society.
Now look at her today.
She ended up with a wife beater who is a JW in good standing (an elder, no less!) but he only beats her on weekends and doesn't try to get her to go down on him while her still DF'd ex-husband also remarried and treats his wife like a queen and she doesn't have a problem pleasing him any way she can.
<quoted text>
"You could not get a divorce just because your husband asked you to do something you didn't want to do."
It is obvious that you don't have any privileges of service in the congregation such as ministerial servant or elder because you would know better...
February 15, 1978 Watchtower
Pages 31-32
If a married person believes that the sexual practices of the mate, though not involving someone outside the marriage, are nevertheless of such a gross nature as to constitute a clear surrender to lewdness or a debauching in lewdness, then that must be his or her own decision and responsibility.
Such a one may hold that the circumstances provide Scriptural basis for divorce. If so, he or she must accept full responsibility before God for any divorce action that might be taken. Elders cannot be expected to express approval (Scripturally) of divorce, if they are not sure of the grounds. At the same time they are not authorized to impose their conscience on another when the matter is a questionable one.(Jas. 4:11, 12) Having expressed what Scriptural counsel they find fitting, they can then make clear to the one involved the seriousness of the matter and the full responsibility that must rest upon him or her if divorce action is taken.
That whole Watchtower article is telling the couple that the responsibility of what goes on in their marriage is their own responsibility before God. The whole article is actually taking the elders out of the equation. This is in complete contrast to the point of this thread and the point you are trying to make.

This article did not say that the elders deemed the divorce to be scriptural. In fact they were to not "impose their conscience on another" They were however to make sure that the one involved knew the seriousness of the matter and the full responsibility that must rest upon him or her if divorce action is taken.

The whole idea you started off with, with the man getting DFed for something to do with the couples sexual practices flies in the face of the whole point of the Watchtower you quoted.
dr fill

Lisle, IL

#390 Jul 16, 2012
jake sully wrote:
If they are practicing jehovahs witnesses they'll probably know up the bum is condemned in the bible but like anything its a conscience thing and also a poo thing
Shully!!! Mulder!!!! Skully!!!!! Mulder!!!!!!!! Where are ya? Its foggy here? Skully!!!!!! Mulder!!!!!!!
Another Anonymous

Adelaide, Australia

#391 Jul 16, 2012
Mikronboy wrote:
Here we go again:
Watchtower for 15 May 2012, paragraph 10:
10 ... Among Jehovah’s servants, however, wedlock can result in true happiness if God’s Word is followed. For instance, consider Paul’s clear counsel on intimate relations in marriage.(Read 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.) It is not Scripturally required that marriage mates limit sexual relations to efforts to produce offspring. Such intimacy can rightly fill emotional and physical needs. But perverted practices certainly do not please God. Christian husbands and wives will undoubtedly want to handle this important aspect of their life with tenderness, allowing them to display genuine affection for each other. And, of course, they should avoid any actions that would displease Jehovah.
There is nothing in that material that says what is and what is not perverted sex acts. That leaves it up to the couple to decide along with THEIR OWN conscience.
UNchained

Seymour, TN

#392 Jul 16, 2012
Gods Kingdom Rules wrote:
<quoted text> That whole Watchtower article is telling the couple that the responsibility of what goes on in their marriage is their own responsibility before God. The whole article is actually taking the elders out of the equation. This is in complete contrast to the point of this thread and the point you are trying to make.
This article did not say that the elders deemed the divorce to be scriptural. In fact they were to not "impose their conscience on another" They were however to make sure that the one involved knew the seriousness of the matter and the full responsibility that must rest upon him or her if divorce action is taken.
The whole idea you started off with, with the man getting DFed for something to do with the couples sexual practices flies in the face of the whole point of the Watchtower you quoted.
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.

February 15, 1978 Watchtower
Page 30

Since: Apr 12

Adelaide, Australia

#393 Jul 16, 2012
OK lest see what the article REALY said. UNchained shows his dishonesty quotes only a selected portion of that article.

*** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***
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?

It must be acknowledged that THE BIBLE DOES NOT GIVE ANY SPECIFIC RULES OR LIMITATIONS AS REGARDS THE MANNER IN WHICH HUSBAND AND WIFE ENGAGE IN SEXUAL RELATIONS. There are brief descriptions of fitting love expressions, such as at Proverbs 5:15-20 and various verses in the Song of Solomon (1:13; 2:6; 7:6-8). These, and texts such as Job 31:9, 10, at least provide an indication of what was customary or normal as regards love play and sexual relations and coincide with what is generally viewed as customary and normal today.

The most forceful counsel in the Scriptures is that we should have complete love for God and love for our neighbor as ourselves; a husband is to love his wife as he does his own body and to cherish her and assign her honor.(Matt. 22:37-40; Eph. 5:25-31; 1 Pet. 3:7) As the apostle states, love “does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked.”(1 Cor. 13:4, 5) This would certainly preclude the FORCING UPON one’s marriage mate unusual PRACTICES THAT THE MATE CONSIDERS DISTASTEFUL or even repugnant and perverted.

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.

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. It also expresses confidence in the desire of Jehovah’s people as a whole to do all things as unto him and to reflect his splendid qualities in all their affairs. It expresses a willingness to leave the judgment of such intimate marital matters in the hands of Jehovah God and his Son, who have the wisdom and knowledge of all circumstances necessary to render the right decisions. It is good for us to remember that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God” and that “each of us will render an account for himself to God.”(Rom. 14:7-10, 12)“We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each one may get his award for the things done through the body, according to the things he has practiced, whether it is good or vile.”—2 Cor. 5:10.

Since: Apr 12

Adelaide, Australia

#395 Jul 16, 2012
continued from above

It is also good to recognize that when the apostle wrote his counsel at Colossians 3:5, 6, he did not address it just to single persons but to married persons as well. He said:“Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” At 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 Paul further counsels that “each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have which do not know God . . . For God called us, not with allowance for uncleanness, but in connection with sanctification.”

By his reference to “sexual appetite” the apostle certainly is not condemning the normal sexual desire that finds proper outlet and expression within the marriage arrangement. We have a normal appetite for food and drink and can properly satisfy it. But one can become a glutton or a drunkard by self-indulgent and unrestrained eating and drinking. So, too, one could get so preoccupied with sex that satisfying sexual desire becomes paramount and the chief aim in itself, rather than an adjunct or subordinate complement to the expressing of love that the Bible urges. When this is the case, then the individual reaches the point of greediness ‘which is idolatry,’ and the sexual desire is that which is idolized.—Eph. 5:3, 5; Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:5.

What, then, of a situation where a married person, perhaps a wife, approaches a congregational elder with the complaint that her marriage mate is abusing her by forcing sexual practices upon her that she rejects as repugnant and perverted? If the marriage mate is willing to discuss the matter, the elder, possibly in company with another elder, can offer to try to help the couple to solve their problem, giving Scriptural counsel.

What if a married person claims that certain sexual practices of the marriage mate are sufficiently gross to come within the scope of the Greek term porneia as used at Matthew 19:9 (“fornication,” New World Translation)? As has been shown, THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT GIVE SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT ALLOWS FOR POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SEXUAL PRACTICES WITHIN MARRIAGE AS BEING—OR NOT BEING—PORNEIA. It may be noted that the Greek term is drawn from a word having the basic meaning of “to sell” or to “surrender or give oneself up to,” and thus porneia has the sense of “a selling or a giving of oneself up to lust or lewdness.” The verb form (porneuo) includes among its meanings that of “to debauch.”(Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon) If a married person believes that the sexual practices of the mate, though not involving someone outside the marriage, are nevertheless of such a gross nature as to constitute a clear surrender to lewdness or a debauching in lewdness, then that must be his or her own decision and responsibility.

Since: Apr 12

Adelaide, Australia

#396 Jul 16, 2012
continued from above

Such a one may hold that the circumstances provide Scriptural basis for divorce. If so, he or she must accept full responsibility before God for any divorce action that might be taken. Elders cannot be expected to express approval (Scripturally) of divorce, if they are not sure of the grounds. At the same time they are not authorized to impose their conscience on another when the matter is a questionable one.(Jas. 4:11, 12) Having expressed what Scriptural counsel they find fitting, they can then make clear to the one involved the seriousness of the matter and the full responsibility that must rest upon him or her if divorce action is taken. If a person is simply seeking a pretext to break the marriage bonds, then such a one can only expect God’s disfavor, for of such treacherous dealing with one’s mate God says that “he has hated a divorcing.”(Mal. 2:16)“God will judge fornicators and adulterers” and anyone divorcing simply on a pretext and then remarrying will not escape that judgment.(Heb. 13:4) The elders can be confident that the Lord “will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest” in his due time.(1 Cor. 4:4, 5) Anyone who sows in deceit and treachery will not escape a harvest of suffering, for “God is not one to be mocked.”—Gal. 6:7, 8.

Even as congregation elders accord to their brothers and sisters the right to exercise their personal conscience in matters where the Scriptures are not explicit, so, too, the elders have a right to exercise their own consciences as to their view of those engaging in questionable actions. If they sincerely feel that the actions of a congregation member in these matters are such that they could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service within the congregation, that is their prerogative.—1 Tim. 1:19; 3:2-12; 5:22.

[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.

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Weston super Mare

#397 Jul 17, 2012
>>>>>>> >>>>>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.<<<<<< <<<<<<

I wonder what happened to those people who had been wrongly disfellowshipped?

Did they get a "Oops! Our mistake!" letter I wonder?
UNchained

Seymour, TN

#398 Jul 17, 2012
Mikronboy wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>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.<<<<<< <<<<<<
I wonder what happened to those people who had been wrongly disfellowshipped?
Did they get a "Oops! Our mistake!" letter I wonder?
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.

February 15, 1978 Watchtower
Page 30
~~~~~~~~~~

"I wonder what happened to those people who had been wrongly disfellowshipped?
Did they get a "Oops! Our mistake!" letter I wonder?"

NO THEY DID NOT.

IF THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE SHUNNED THEY HAD TO GROVEL IN FRONT OF 3 ELDERS AND SIT IN THE BACK ROW FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS SO THE ELDERS COULD SEE THAT THEY WERE TRULY REPENTANT FOR COMMITING ACTS THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE SINS.

NEAT HUH.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#399 Jul 17, 2012
Another Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing in that material that says what is and what is not perverted sex acts. That leaves it up to the couple to decide along with THEIR OWN conscience.
as our WT conductor said we all know what they are, and as other Wt literature in the past has stated exactly what they were.

“"Leave the dead horses alone"”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#400 Jul 17, 2012
UNchained wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
February 15, 1978 Watchtower
Page 30
~~~~~~~~~~
"I wonder what happened to those people who had been wrongly disfellowshipped?
Did they get a "Oops! Our mistake!" letter I wonder?"
NO THEY DID NOT.
IF THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE SHUNNED THEY HAD TO GROVEL IN FRONT OF 3 ELDERS AND SIT IN THE BACK ROW FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS SO THE ELDERS COULD SEE THAT THEY WERE TRULY REPENTANT FOR COMMITING ACTS THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE SINS.
NEAT HUH.
In many US states in the 70s Oral sex was against the law of the land making it a sin as we should of been obeying Ceasers law where it does not conflict with Gods laws anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_t...
UNchained

Seymour, TN

#401 Jul 17, 2012
Another Anonymous wrote:

There is nothing in that material that says what is and what is not perverted sex acts. That leaves it up to the couple to decide along with THEIR OWN conscience.
array wrote:
<quoted text>as our WT conductor said we all know what they are, and as other Wt literature in the past has stated exactly what they were.
Yes, mature JW's know what they are.

Just as mature JW's know better than to displease Jehovah by engaging in long, very long spiritual discussions with those who have rejected the faithful slave.

ROFL
UNchained

Seymour, TN

#402 Jul 17, 2012
Gods Kingdom Rules wrote:
<quoted text> In many US states in the 70s Oral sex was against the law of the land making it a sin as we should of been obeying Ceasers law where it does not conflict with Gods laws anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_t...
And in many other states oral sex was NOT against the law of the land so it was not a sin.

You aren't too bright.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
NFL is no longer tax-exempt..let's get churches... 20 min Arkham Bravo 1
Obama is hastening the Apocalypse 37 min bystander no more 2
Poll Harlot of Babylon will drink 1 hr sidgi 21
Refining & Cleansing--God's Way Vs Yours (Aug '13) 1 hr Aneirin 716
Fossils found at 13,000 ft in the Andes Mountia... (Jan '10) 1 hr Aneirin 31
Poll Who is more commited to Jehovah work 1 hr sidgi 4
How the "70 years" of exile works. 1 hr LineCalier 26
Candace Conti/WT Update 2 hr RedhorseWoman 301
WHAT is the name of the 'Holy-Ghost-God'? 2 hr MarcelB 73
What is Armageddon.. an actual future event? 4 hr curtjester1 148
News How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 6 hr The Real Karen 1,195
More from around the web