Contact Info

	Murder
	Deliberate manslayer (to be judged in harmony with bible)
	Adultery
	Fornication of a type incurring death under law (incest, bestiality)
	Brother committing loose conduct by fornicating with two blood related parties (mother & daughter etc.)
	Men who lie with men
	Men kept for unnatural purposes
	Idolatry
	Blasphemy
	Kidnapper
	Unrepentant sinner
	Spiritism
	Abuse of blood (living blood cells) other than for the purpose of saving life
	Calling a curse on both true Mother and true Father in the same day.
	Striking true Mother and true Father in the same day.
	Knowingly and maliciously making a false accusation officially that would if true have resulted in the disfellowshipping of another.

PFCs have the capability to be as good as or better than red cells at oxygen transport to cells. Oxycyte claims to do a 70 times better job than God in this regard and why not? This technology is represented to be only a few months away from FDA approval. Oxycyte has just finished Phase 1 clinical trials - see www.bioexchange.com. Some of the progress made in this new field must be due to the position of the JWs. So here, for a change, the LWs salute the JWs for their uncompromising stance on blood in general (although the details were wrong, the idea was right). As of March 25th 2004, MP4, a new synthetic red cell substitute has passed its phase II clinical trials. So artificial blood is nearly here!

[J7.0] Taking a blood transfusion in self defense!

Well, here is a section that Gordon never thought he would be writing! The LWs changed their stance on blood transfusions on November 9th 2004 (early morning) 2004Heshvan22, as a result of the work of Jeff Goldsmith, a son of Levi. He spent two months considering this issue and at the same time Barb in the US was considering it. They both focused on 1Samuel14. Geoff convinced Gordon and we finally understand the following:

When someone attacks you, trying to kill you, they lose their right to their life, their blood. You gain the right to use their life, their blood, only to save your own. You can choose to kill them and spill their blood in self defense with impunity. If your life is in danger then you can make any use of their blood, their life, that in your judgment protects or saves your life, your blood. So you can make any life protecting use of an attacker's blood without his consent, since his attack on your life, your blood, is an implied consent. The legal effect of the attack is merely to grant a consent to the victim to use the attacker's blood in a life protecting way. Therefore you can make any life protecting use of a non attacker's blood with his consent. Therefore you can take a blood transfusion from a consenting person in order to protect your life.

Putting this in a more simple way. God's law on blood exists to protect the sanctity of physical life which is represented by the blood and is owned by God. Therefore a use of blood which saves a life, does not break the law which forbids abuse of blood. It is actually the purpose of blood to protect life!!!

This is not true of God's law on idolatry. If a false worshipper tells you he will shoot you unless you do an act of false worship, the thing to do is to refuse, and if necessary, kill him, run or get shot.

Here is the relevant part of 1Samuel14:

23 And Jehovah proceeded on that day to save Israel, and the battle itself passed over to Beth-aven.
24 And the men of Israel themselves were hard pressed on that day, and yet Saul put the people under the pledge of an oath, saying: Cursed is the man that eats bread before the evening and until I have taken vengeance upon my enemies! And none of the people tasted bread.
25 And all those of the land came into the woods, when honey happened to be over all the surface of the field.
26 When the people came into the woods, why, look! there was a dripping of honey, but there was no one putting his hand to his mouth, because the people were afraid of the oath.
27 As for Jonathan, he had not been listening when his father put the people under an oath, so he stretched out the tip of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it into the honeycomb and drew his hand back to his mouth, and his eyes began to beam.
28 At this one of the people answered and said: Your father solemnly put the people under oath, saying, 'Cursed is the man that eats bread today!' And the people began to get tired.
29 However, Jonathan said: My father has brought ostracism upon the land. See, please, how my eyes have beamed because I tasted this little bit of honey.
30 How much more so if the people had but eaten today from the spoil of their enemies that they found! For now the slaughter upon the Philistines has not been great.
31 And on that day they kept striking down the Philistines from Michmash to Aijalon, and the people got to be very tired.
32 And the people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood [they did not bleed them before they cooked them].
33 So they told Saul, saying: Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood. At this he said: You have dealt treacherously. First of all, roll a great stone to me.
34 After that Saul said: Scatter among the people, and you must say to them, 'Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.' Accordingly all the people brought near each one his bull that was in his hand that night and did the slaughtering there.
35 And Saul proceeded to build an altar to Jehovah. With it he started altar building to Jehovah.
36 Later Saul said: Let us go down after the Philistines by night and plunder them until the morning lightens up, and let us not leave a single one among them. To this they said: Anything that is good in your eyes do. Then the priest said: Let us approach here to the [true] God.
37 And Saul began to inquire of God: Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will you give them into the hand of Israel? And he did not answer him on that day.
38 So Saul said: Come near here, all you keymen of the people, and ascertain and see in what way this sin has come to be today.
39 For as Jehovah, who is the Deliverer of Israel, is alive, even if it is in Jonathan my son, yet he will positively die. But there was no one answering him out of all the people.
40 And he went on to say to all Israel: You yourselves will come to be on the one side, and I and Jonathan my son -- we will come to be on the other side. At this the people said to Saul: What is good in your eyes do.
41 And Saul proceeded to say to Jehovah: Oh God of Israel, do give Thummim! Then Jonathan and Saul were taken, and the people themselves went out.
42 Saul now said: Cast lots to decide between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan got to be taken.
43 Then Saul said to Jonathan: Do tell me, What have you done? So Jonathan told him and said: I did for a fact taste a little honey on the tip of the rod that is in my hand. Here I am! Let me die!
45 At this Saul said: Thus may God do and thus may he add to it, if you do not positively die, Jonathan.
45 But the people said to Saul: Is Jonathan to die, who has performed this great salvation in Israel? It is unthinkable! As Jehovah is alive, not as much as a single hair of his head will fall to the earth; for it was with God that he worked this day. With that the people redeemed Jonathan, and he did not die
46 So Saul withdrew from following the Philistines, and the Philistines themselves went to their place (1 Samuel 14).

This is a very interesting and technical account. Jonathon instigates an attack on the Philistines. Saul makes the people swear an unnecessary oath that limits their ability to do God's work. Jonathon inadvertently breaks this oath being unaware that it existed and God blesses him and the attack nonetheless. Saul then attempts to instigate a further attack  on the Philistines on the next Hebrew day, but God does not indicate that he will bless Saul's attack. It must have occurred to Saul that he might be at fault, because he asks for Thummim to decide whose fault it is that God refuses to bless the second attack. The Thummim decides that the fault lies with either Jonathon or Saul. Thummim should be used by the priest not by the king, although Saul may have asked the priest to use it. So the result here is suspect.

So the lot came for Jonathon and Saul instantly and immediately condemned his own son to death, a son whose battle against the Philistines had been blessed by God all day long. But in truth it was Saul who was to blame by putting his men in an impossible position with an oath that was tantamount to killing them. He took Israel into the oath in order to appear to be as courageous as his son Jonathon, with whom he was competing. He was actually jealous of his own son, and he risked the lives of the whole army in order to enhance his popularity (he could have run for office today on that ticket and won). Now God did not kill those of the sons of Israel who had eaten blood along with their meat. He could have instructed Saul to attack the Philistines and arranged for everyone who had eaten blood to be killed for example. He could have instructed Samuel to speak to Saul and tell him to kill everyone who had eaten blood. He could have sent an angel and struck them all down as he did in the case of 70,000 of those who agreed to be registered by Joab. But God did not punish any of his people, he merely embarrassed Saul by failing to bless him as he had blessed his son. This was in fact the perfect punishment for a King who had sought to increase his popularity by risking the lives of his soldiers. God's response was to save the lives of his soldiers and decrease the popularity of the King! 

Now clearly God did not make a mistake or forget about the men who had eaten the blood! So there must have been extenuating circumstances for the sons of Israel who abused blood. Well if you are prosecuting a war which requires you to chase after people and hack them to pieces with swords, then being tired and hungry and therefore weak, is a life threatening problem. So the extenuating circumstances were that the soldiers were in mortal danger. If the Philistines had launched a counter attack on tired hungry and weak men, the result could have been fatal. So obviously there are circumstances wherein abusing blood carries no penalty. We deduce from this account that such circumstances are when the abuse of blood is for the purpose of saving or protecting life. Here is some more simple blood logic...

10 As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.
11 For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls,
because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it].
12 That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood (Leviticus 17).

So the only permissible use of blood under law was sacrificial in order to redeem your soul. The purpose of a sacrifice being to save life. So God only permits blood to be used sacrificially in order save life. So if someone sacrifices his own blood in order to save another persons life, through a blood transfusion, then that is precisely the permitted use of blood by God. In fact the one who sacrifices his blood in order to save another's life is doing what Jesus did with his blood, is he not? And the one who sacrifices his kidney in order to save his brother's life is likewise doing what Jesus did with his body, surely? For we both eat his body and drink his blood.

If we are Christians, should we not then sacrifice both our body parts and our blood in order to save our brother's lives, like our exemplar Jesus Christ did, in order to save all of our lives?

Or shall we stand here, saved by the sacrificial use of Jesus' body and blood, claiming to be following in his footsteps, but forbidding the sacrificial use of our own body or our own blood to save anyone else!  

So dear brothers and sisters in the patriarchs of Israel and in the cherubs and Seraph of God, we have become like our archetypes the Pharisees whom we deride. We have gulped down the details of the law of Moses and strained out its lesson and its fulfillment, which is the absolute necessity of the sacrifice of one man’s body and blood for another. For it was a tutor leading to the sacrifice of the Christ. And we as Christians should likewise stand ready to sacrifice ourselves or parts thereof for our brothers. Jesus said:

What if you take or are forced to take a blood transfusion?

Physiologically, assuming the blood you receive contains living blood cells (non red cells) from another person, then your blood is polluted and becomes unclean. What this means is that any baptism which you possess, since it was effected by a washing in the blood of a mediator, is broken, because the blood you receive will not be so washed. Now there is an interesting question here. Since you cannot be spirit baptized twice, is a born again brother or sister consigned to Gehenna by virtue of this transfusion?

The answer is no because the baptism symbolically washes not just your blood but effectively your blood production organs, such as your spleen and your bone marrow. If it only symbolically washed your blood cells, then since they all perish after a few months, your baptism would ' run out'! So after a few months (and certainly less that 7 months) the foreign blood cells will have all died and your spirit baptism will be returned to you.

If you receive a blood transfusion unknowingly or against your will, then you are in the position of a woman who has been raped. So long as you 'screamed' (if that was possible - Deuteronomy 22) you can be returned to the congregation immediately. 

23 In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her,
24 You must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst.
25 If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself,
26 and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this case (Deuteronomy 22:23-26).

Summary:

[1] Any baptized LW who willingly takes a blood transfusion of blood other than his/her own is disfellowshipped for 7 months unless the blood transfusion was necessary to save his/her life or to prevent a life threatening situation.

[2] Any baptized LW who willingly donates blood without a guarantee from the person to whom he gives it that the blood will only be used to save a life or to prevent a life threatening situation is disfellowshipped for 7 months.

[3]  God's law as we understand it, permits blood transfusions only in life threatening situations. If you take a transfusion in these circumstances we recommend that you ask for blood filtered with at least a 4th generation log6 filter to limit your exposure to the immune system of the donor.

[4] If you choose not to have a blood transfusion in a life threatening circumstance, this is not an attempted suicide, everyone has the right to refuse any form of medical treatment.

Artificial blood is OK, your own blood is OK, and white cell free blood (not white cell reduced blood) is OK. But at this point the technology for white cell free blood, which is the holy grail of blood transfusion medicine, is not yet available. As we understand it.

So a LW Blood Transfusion Card should read something like this...

I only authorize a blood transfusion as a last resort in a life threatening situation. I will only accept leucodepleted blood.

Signed...........................................

Technical Point

18 And where a man lies down with a menstruating woman and does lay bare her nakedness, he has exposed her source, and she herself has laid bare the source of her blood. So both of them must be cut off from among their people (Leviticus 20).

We take this to mean that one should not have unprotected penetrative sex with a menstruating woman. If such a thing deliberately occurs when the woman is definitively menstruating then according to the law, both parties should be thrown out. This is because the act is an abuse of blood. The blood of the woman can easily enter the thin skin of the moving member of the man. Protected sex would be OK in this situation. We are not going to police this and there will never or very rarely be 2 or 3 witnesses to such an act. So use your conscience and common sense here brothers and sisters please! We are not going to be the menstrual investigation division.

[J7.1]  Blood Components

[J8] Age limits on baptisms

We know from the manner in which God treated those under 20 in the wilderness, and from the fact that they could not be registered in Israel and no one under 20 can be sanctified, that is baptized in holy spirit. But what is the lower limit for water baptism? 

13 Then young children were brought to him, for him to put his hands upon them and offer prayer; but the disciples reprimanded them.
14 Jesus, however, said: Let the young children alone, and stop hindering them from coming to me, for the kingdom of the heavens belongs to suchlike ones.
15 And he put his hands upon them and went from there (Matthew 19:13-15).

This is an omission symbolism, the children were brought for Jesus to both put his hands upon and offer prayer, he did only the former.

2 Although indeed Jesus himself did no baptizing but his disciples did (John 4:2).

By the Omission Principle of the code, the greater meaning of this involves actually saying a prayer, which would result in a baptism for these kids.

13 Now people began bringing him young children for him to touch these; but the disciples reprimanded them.
14 At seeing this Jesus was indignant and said to them: Let the young children come to me; do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to suchlike ones.
15 Truly I say to you, Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a young child will by no means enter into it.
16 And he took the children into his arms and began blessing them, laying his hands upon them (Mark 10:13-16).

So now Jesus has said a blessing over them and laid his hands upon them, both of which are done in a baptism - see [204].

15 Now people began to bring him also their infants (brefh) for him to touch these; but on seeing it the disciples began to reprimand them.
16 However, Jesus called them to him, saying: Let the young children (paidia) come to me, and do not try to stop them. For the kingdom of God belongs to suchlike ones.
17 Truly I say to you, Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a young child will by no means get into it (Luke 18:15-17).

Here infants were brought but Jesus responded that not infants but young children should not be stopped from coming to him. So it is clear from all of the above that infants should not be baptized in water but young children should be so baptized. However at what age does an infant become a young child from a biblical point of view?

Firstly we look at the account of Isaac, who after he was weaned was persecuted by Ishmael. Now persecution is one of the trade marks of a Christian, or should I say of a member of the true religion. 

8 Now the child kept growing and came to be weaned; and Abraham then prepared a big feast on the day of Isaac's being weaned.
9 And Sarah kept noticing the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, poking fun (Genesis 21:8,9).

Now we know that Abraham's seed were to be afflicted for 400 years:

13 And he began to say to Abram: You may know for sure that your seed will become an alien resident in a land not theirs, and they will have to serve them, and these will certainly afflict them for 400 years (Genesis 15:13).

This affliction was of course at the hands of the Egyptians, and look! Ishmael is described as 'the son of Hagar the Egyptian' in case we did not know. So the 400 years started this day and ended on 1513Nisan14 at the passover. So this day was 1913Nisan14 which might explain the big feast that Abraham made. Isaac was born when Abraham was 100, so he was born in 1918. So Isaac was 5 years old at the time that he was born weaned and persecuted.

Now we have a look at possibly the most politically incorrect scripture in the entire bible. Of course politicians are dishonest as we all know so being politically correct is being correct by the very definition of a politician!

3 and the estimated value has to be of a male from 20 years old up to 60 years old, the estimated value must then become 50 shekels of silver by the shekel of the holy place.
4 But if it is a female, the estimated value must then become 30 shekels.
5 And if the age is from 5 years old up to 20 years old, the estimated value of the male must then become 20 shekels and for the female 10 shekels.
6 And if the age is from a month old up to 5 years old, the estimated value of the male must then become 5 shekels of silver and for the female the estimated value must be 3 shekels of silver.
7 'Now if the age is from 60 years old upward, if it is a male, the estimated value must then become 15 shekels and for the female 10 shekels (Leviticus 27:3,7)

This can be succinctly summarized in the table below:

Here again the holy spirit is making a distinction at 5 years old. So although we are no longer under law, we know that God's principles do not change so an 'infant' becomes a 'young child' at 5 years old. So a young child of 5 years old (by the NBLC which has been in use since 1992Elul - Gordon thinks) can be baptized, but into which covenant? We used to think that since a child is plainly too young to act as a priest and to baptize others in water, they must be baptized into the 1AC not the 2AC. But since children were resurrected by Jesus and the only legal mechanism available to him for this was the ICC then children must be in the ICC. With hindsight we can see that we forgot about women. They cannot act as priests at all in this system but they are baptized into the ICC just as the men are, so children likewise must enter the ICC on joining the true Christian congregation by 'water baptism' as they must also have done by entering and keeping the Law after they were weaned in Israel. 

Now does a child baptized into the ICC come under the rules of the congregation? The answer is yes, there was only one Law of Moses. But one does have to consider diminished responsibility for younger Christians so please BE MERCIFUL with them allow for their naivety, but do not let them damage the congregation deliberately. The good book says as regards overseers:

6 If there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly (Titus 1).

Why single out only debauchery as a charge for children which would disqualify their father from being an overseer? Well, we used to think incorrectly that is was because this is the only charge that children can be under. But obviously an 18 year old murderer should be disfellowshipped. Debauchery and unruliness are the sins of children for which parents are held responsible as regards their suitability to be elders... 

But there is more, because a man or woman who is over 60 has a 'value' less than or equal to a young child. So we must consider the possibility that a person who is 60 years old or more cannot be sanctified and is only eligible for a water baptism. This would make sense as the test on someone with that age and maturity would be less than it would be on a 21 year old. Well the new testament does use the 60 years age limit:

9 Let a widow be put on the list who has become not less than 60 years old, a wife of one husband (1 Timothy 5:9).

So we are going to restrict sanctifications (that we do) to people between 20 and 60 years old as measured by the NBLC, (for the moment.)

So when the children start into their 20th year by Hebrew Reckoning, according to the New Biblical Lunar Calendar, i.e. on their 20th Elul1, they can be baptized in Holy spirit. When boys reach the age of 20 by Hebrew reckoning, then they can start baptizing others.

15 Blow a horn in Zion, O men. Sanctify a time of fasting. Call together a solemn assembly.
16 Gather [the] people together. Sanctify a congregation. Collect [the] old men together. Gather children and those sucking the breasts together. Let [the] bridegroom go forth from his interior room, and [the] bride from her nuptial chamber (Joel 2).

The Holy Spirit has separated the sucklings (under 5), the children (5-20), the congregation (20-60) and the old men (over 60). Only the congregation is sanctified. Literally this 'sanctification' was a setting aside for a holy purpose. But the greater meaning is sanctification in holy spirit, for the bridegroom is the mediator and the bride the covenanters of a spirit covenant.

14 For all who are led by God's spirit, these are God's sons.
15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: "Abba, the Father!"
16 The spirit itself bears-witness-with the spirit of us [not the spirits of us, but the spirit singular of the congregation, the church] that we are God's children (Romans 8).

The congregation spirit is a composite spirit, like the holy spirit, which is the overall spirit of the congregation of the holy angels. The holy spirit tells the congregation which ones are spirit baptized, not the saints in that congregation!!!

36 And he went on to say: Abba, the Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me. Yet not what I want, but what you want (Mark 14).

6 Now because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts and it cries out: Abba, the Father! (Galatians 4).

Now any man over 20 could be registered into the army of Israel to fight. 

45 And all those registered of the sons of Israel according to the house of their fathers from twenty years old upward, everyone going out to the army in Israel, came to be (Numbers 1).

Any man 20 years old or over can fight and kill the enemy by water baptism. So you can be water baptized aged 5 or over and you can carry out a water baptism if you are male and 20 years old and over. But you can only be spirit baptized or carry out a spirit baptism if you are 20 years old or over and 59 years old or under by Hebrew reckoning. 

Applying the bible code to the 60 year old Widow passage of 1 Timothy 5

3 Honor widows that are actually widows.
4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own house and to keep paying a due compensation to their parents and grandparents, for this is acceptable in God's sight.
5 Now the woman who is actually a widow and left destitute has put her hope in God and persists in supplications and prayers night and day.
6 But the one that goes in for sensual gratification is dead though she is living.
7 So keep on giving these commands, that they may be irreprehensible.
8 Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are household-members, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.
9 Let a widow be listed who has become not less than 60 years old, a wife of one man,
10 having a witness borne to her for fine works, if she reared-children, if she entertained strangers, if she washed the feet of holy ones, if she relieved those in tribulation, if she diligently followed every good work.
11 On the other hand, turn down younger widows, for when their sexual impulses have come between them and the Christ, they want to marry,
12 having a judgment because they have disregarded their first [expression of] faith.
13 At the same time they also learn to be unoccupied, gadding about to the houses; yes, not only unoccupied, but also gossipers and meddlers in other people's affairs, talking of things they ought not.
14 Therefore I desire the younger [widows] to marry, to bear-children, to household-manage, to give no inducement to the opposer to revile.
15 Already, in fact, some have been turned aside to follow Satan.
16 If any believing [woman] has widows, let her relieve them, and let the congregation not be under the burden. Then it can relieve the [ones] truly widows (1 Timothy 5).

Widows (5)
Widow (3)
Woman (1)
Children (1)
Grandchildren (1)
House (1)
Houses (1)
Husband (0)
Christ (1)
Satan (1)
Faith (1)
Tribulation (1)
Gossipers (1)
Meddlers (1)

The passage has no countable noun recited an even number of times. So it has no greater meaning. But Paul is plainly saying that the holy spirit regards 60 year old women as not being under the same test as younger women as regards their sexual impulses. So a test on a 60 year old is a different test to that on a 30 year old.

[J9] Transplants

[J10] Fornication and Adultery

King Solomon said...

32 Anyone committing adultery with a woman is in want of heart; he that does it is bringing his own soul to ruin (Proverbs 6).

And Jesus said, in his sermon on the mount....

28 But I say to you that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman [assumed married] so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5).

When you look at a married woman you do not sin. You fuel a desire to sin. James explains the distinction between these two situations...

15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth
death (James 1).

Desires are not sins themselves. They are sinful yes, in that they are a step on the road to sin, but you need to act in order to sin. Desires are policed by one's conscience. And it is God's purpose and indeed the purpose of any good teacher to train your conscience so that you police your own actions according to his righteousness. And he will succeed. You are free to choose to take as long as you like in this school, but God does not fail. You will eventually Graduate! 

Likewise, in this church, we will not police everything you do. Because the idea is for you to train your own conscience based upon God's standard of righteousness, which the church hopefully understands and explains. We do not police any desires and there are some sins which we also do not police. But our not policing a sin does not mean that you should go ahead and do it, or that we endorse that sin or any sin. It just means that we hope you can police yourself to that extent and God trusts you to do that. He trusts us a lot. God is a fairly hands off manager!!

So when you look at a married woman the wrong way, you do not sin, you merely fuel a destructive desire. If that desire leads to adultery, then you sin and we police that sin. Obviously looking at and desiring an unmarried woman is not a sin either. And when a woman looks at any man with a view to having sex, she likewise commits absolutely no sin.

15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth
death (James 1).

What constitutes adultery?

The scriptures make a lot of noise about the emission of semen defiling a woman...

20 You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it (Leviticus 18).

22 In case a man is found lying down with a woman owned by an owner, both of them must then die together, the man lying down with the woman and the woman. So you must clear away what is bad out of Israel.
23 In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, 24 you must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst.
25 If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself, 
26 and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this case.
27 For it was in the field that he found her. The girl who was engaged screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.
28 In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, 
29 the man who lay down with her must also give the girl's father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days (Deuteronomy 22:22-29).

Obviously this lying down, involves more than a kiss and a cuddle.

17 If her father flatly refuses to give her to him, he is to pay over the money at the rate of purchase money for virgins (Exodus 22).

9 In my letter I wrote you to quit mixing in company with fornicators, 
10 not entirely [meaning] with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise you would actually have to get out of this world. 
11 But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 
12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside,
13 while God judges those outside? Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

So the Corinthian congregation was told to avoid serial fornicators, extortioners, greedy persons and idolaters in the congregation. But Paul did not say throw out such men. He said remove the wicked man, a man who was sleeping with his father's wife. So Paul is not saying that all such people should be disfellowshipped. Paul is giving some extra protection to individual Corinthian Christians, whose congregational administration have proved unable to disfellowship an incestual adulterer! He is extolling the brothers and sisters to use their own judgment within the congregation in circumstances where the elders have demonstrably failed to use theirs. In these circumstances, individual Christians can refuse to mix with or to eat physically or spiritually with errant Christians, but they should point out their sin and try to bring them to repentance first. The first commandment is to love, not to judge. But at some point true love involves judgment. Obviously one act of greed is not grounds for a disfellowshipping. Although one act of idolatry is. Obviously one should not disfellowship all fat people who continue to over eat, or all rich people who continue to make huge sums of money.

The thing is you can eat physically or spiritually with a DFD man. Paul is giving advice on how to treat brothers here, not on how to treat people outside the congregation. John says a similar thing...

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.
11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works (2 John).

This advice was for the treatment of brothers and sisters who have abandoned 'this teaching', namely Jesus coming in the flesh. So shunning and not eating with people is a penalty that Christians in dire circumstances should use within the congregation, it is not something that is applied to those outside. We can mix in company with all sorts of fornicators etc. from the world. But we should not tolerate hypocrites who continue to 'call themselves' Christians. These ones who abandon Jesus' commandments and yet stay in the congregation are there to destroy it. The reader will be hard pushed to find any congregation without some of these guys. If they had any integrity they would leave after recognising the hypocrisy of their personal position. 

But every good community is self policing. The Commissioner of London's Metropolitan police from 1993 to 2000, Sir Paul Condon (with an 'n'), said that when he started his job, the various communities in London would regularly hand him over their criminals and largely policed themselves. But as he approached his retirement, the only policing they ever got was from him.

St. Paul and St. John are likewise encouraging Christians to be self policing. That is quite contrary to the modern way of thinking. 

In case a man's wife turns aside in that she does commit an act of unfaithfulness against him, and another man actually lies down with her, and has an emission of semen, and it has been hidden from the eyes of her husband, and has remained undiscovered, and she for her part has defiled herself but there is no witness against her, and she herself has not been caught......And the priest must make her swear, and he must say to the woman: If no man has lain down with you and if while under your husband you have not turned aside in any uncleanness, be free of this bitter water that brings a curse. But you, in case you have turned aside while under you husband, and in case you have defiled yourself and some man has put in you his seminal emission, besides your husband... (Numbers 5:13-20).

So lying down involves an emission of semen. Certainly the emission of semen enters into the sin of adultery. The Jealousy test is all about semen, and so there is no penalty on the woman if there is no semen because she passes the test. Therefore she cannot be put to death therefore she is not an adulterer:

10 Now a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, is one who commits adultery with the wife of his fellowman. He should be put to death without fail, the adulterer and the adulteress as well (Leviticus 20).

So when a man lies down with a woman this includes his putting his semen into her, for otherwise he would not be put to death and therefore would not have committed adultery. The scriptures say this more directly...

20 Now in case a man lies down with a woman and has an emission of semen, when she is a maidservant designated for another man, and she has not in any way been redeemed nor has freedom been given her, punishment should take place. They should not be put to death because she was not set free (Leviticus 19).

So the emission of semen applies also to fornication, so it must apply in the same way as it does to adultery. So both fornication and adultery require an emission of semen, i.e. semen from the man entering the vagina of the woman. So protected sex cannot be either fornication or adultery, so long as the protection works. Furthermore sleeping with another man's slave girl or concubine, is not adultery, for if it was then the both of them would be put to death. But Leviticus 19 continues...

21 And he must bring his guilt offering to Jehovah to the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram of guilt offering.
22 And the priest must make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before Jehovah for his sin that he committed; and his sin that he committed must be forgiven him (Leviticus 19).

16 Now in case a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and he actually lies down with her, he is to obtain her without fail as his wife for the purchase price.
17 If her father flatly refuses to give her to him, he is to pay over the money at the rate of purchase money for virgins (Exodus 22:16,17).

There must have been an emission of semen for a purchase to be necessary.
We take 'emission of semen' as being inside the vagina to defile the woman.

If a man lies down with his own fiancee there appears to be no punishment prescribed, although a fortiori he would have to marry her and her father would have already consented. If another man would die having slept with an engaged woman, then since sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, one must assume that the rights against the other man must also be rights for the engaged man. Hence he has no accusation of fornication if he sleeps with his fiancee. No 50 shekels would be payable, i.e. no accusation until the Jubilee.

If a man lies down with a non sanctified woman, a woman who has not been set free, and does not 'have an emission of semen' i.e. does not have procreative sex, there appears to be no punishment, not from the law in any event.

A virgin who is sold for 50 shekels is not a slave, for these are sold for 30 shekels.

29 Write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you! (Acts 15).

25 Rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication (Acts 21).

18 Flee from fornication. Every [other] sin that a man may commit is outside the body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body (1 Corinthians 6).

This seems to imply that fornication requires semen to be emitted from inside the/his body. The uncleanness comes from the corrupting seed, it appears. To sin against one's own body one must join it to another one really:

16 He who is joined to a harlot is one body, for the two, says he, will be one flesh (1 Corinthians 6).

This cannot occur with protected sex, the two cannot become one flesh in this case. In fact the two in a marriage are not one flesh until the marriage is consummated. In ancient Israel the marriage feast occurred after the consummation, and the groom had to provide sheets as evidence, before the banquet began. When Jesus said:

5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh'?
6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together let no man put asunder (Matthew 19).

God sanctions the joining together of those promised in marriage. Said joining together is the emmission of semen into the woman.

17 Now in case a man has an emission of semen go out from him, he must then bathe all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening (Leviticus 15).

Both Adultery and Fornication require an emission of semen into the woman’s vagina, in order for defilement to occur, and an illegal joining of two fleshes to happen.

I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.
The disciples said to him: If such is the situation of a man with his wife, it is not advisable to marry.
He said to them: Not all men make room for the saying, but only those who have the gift.
For there are eunuchs that were born such from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs that have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him that can make room for it make room for it (Matt 9:9-12).

30 No man should take his father's wife, that he may not uncover the skirt of his father (Deuteronomy 22).

Plainly if a man took his brother's wife then he would be uncovering the skirt of his brother. So safe sex with someone else's wife is an implied act of homosexuality and therefore would result in disfellowshipping. But it is actually worse than this, for a wife is actually owned by her husband according to the biblical definition of marriage.

3 If he should come in by himself, by himself he will go out. If he is the owner of a wife, then his wife must go out with him (Exodus 21).

So a wife is not in a position to consent to have sex with another man, since she is the property of her husband. Only the husband can consent on her behalf, and such consents although not impossible are unlikely. But a consent alone would not stop a disfellowshipping sin, the husband would also have to be impotent or not have consummated his marriage, so that the two were not one flesh. In that case there would be no implied homosexuality and no implied rape. But in all other cases a man who has safe sex with another man's wife is in fact an implied homosexual rapist, which is not good in biblical terms. So he is definitely disfellowshipped. 

The situation is very different with an unmarried woman who agrees to have sex with someone else's husband. The bible does not legislate against Lesbianism in the Law, and a woman cannot be a rapist from a legal standpoint. So if a single sister has safe sex with a single or a married man she has no penalty from the congregation whether the man is a brother or not. For there is no fornication, there is no rape and there is no implied homosexuality.

But if a married sister has safe sex with a brother (single or married), then she is effectively making him into a homosexual rapist, and therefore she is knowingly causing him to be disfellowshipped, and therefore she should be disfellowshipped herself. 

And if a married sister has safe sex with a man (single or married) in the world then she is effectively committing an act of homosexuality since her flesh is her husband's flesh. In fact she is causing the implied homosexual rape of her husband by the man with whom she sleeps. So she would be disfellowshipped assuming she consents to the safe sex. Since this is implied homosexuality if the sister permits penetration of her mouth her backside or her vagina, i.e. is she permit orifice penetration then she is disfellowshipped for implied homosexuality. 

If a single sister has safe sex with a married brother, then neither receive a penalty from the congregation. The congregation has no means to police this as far as we can see. But plainly it should be policed by the conscience of the single sister and the married brother. We do not condone or endorse or invite or encrouage such activity. It is an assault on the institution of marriage which is the building block of society. The law of the land in Christian countres in the West does not police this either. In fact it does not police any form of adultery or fornication. 

1. Safe sex with a condom cannot be fornication or adultery so long as the condom is effective and prevents an emission of semen into the woman. But safe sex with a married woman is implied homosexual rape (unless the husband consents and is impotent or has not consummated the marriage - so that her flesh is single) and so brings disfellowshipping. Safe or unprotected sex between a married person and someone other than the spouse is in most circumstances an attack on the institution of marriage and therefore should be avoided in accordance with one's conscience even if it is not policed by the church.
    
2. True fornication with a non baptised woman (defiling her with semen), who has not been set free has no penalty but he must admit it to their ministerial servant for each such partner (this being his guilt offering). If he is found out then he gets an accusation, unless he then marries her.
    
3. True fornication with a sister, who has been set free, requires an offer to marry the sister. If she refuses (her father God accepts), then he gets an accusation and so does the sister. If she accepts, then he gets the sister as a wife.
    
4. Although true fornication is a sin, unmarried sisters who truly fornicate with non LW men, get no penalty whatsoever from the congregation. However they may of course get pregnant or get AIDS. They must confess this sin to their ministerial servant (their guilt offering), since they are doing something spiritually and physically dangerous. This does not mean a confession on each occasion, just that a sister is having such a relationship with a worldly man. It does mean a confession for each true fornicating partner. The ministerial servant should advise and help her, not investigate any salacious details. He could even suggest talking with the partner and explaining why a condom would be a good idea all round if the sister cannot persuade her partner herself. Sisters who truly fornicate with brothers get the same penalty that the brother gets since they share the responsibility for causing his punishment! So they get a warning unless they marry the brother.
    
5. If there is a pregnancy then there must be a marriage or at least an offer of marriage by the party that is in the congregation. These laws are for the purpose of providing a child with a mother and a father. If a brother or a sister who has a child coming fails to get married by the time that the child is delivered then he or she is disfellowshipped, whether or not he or she is the one refusing marriage. He or she can return to the church after 7 months because we do permit certificates of dismissal and divorce. But if they marry someone else, since they are already joined in the flesh through the kid to the first parent, they commit adultery and will need to be disfellowshipped again.
    
6. True adultery within the congregation or between a baptised and a non baptised person is disfellowshipping for both parties, or for whichever party is in the congregation.
    
7. If whilst using a condom the thing breaks or falls off and an emission of semen occurs, by which is meant an ejaculation, not merely a bit of leaking before such, in the case of an unmarried woman, then we have accidental fornication, or negligent fornication. Here we invoke the pregnancy test of Numbers 5. If a pregnancy occurs then the brother has fornicated and is treated as such. If no pregnancy occurs then he is treated as though he has not fornicated.
    
8. If a condom falls off or breaks in sex between a worldly man and a unmarried sister, then if the sister does not fall pregnant, the incident is closed. If she does fall pregnant, her belly swelling and her thigh falling away, i.e. she does not miscarry very early, then we have accidental or negligent true fornication. This case must be like the law for a parapet on the flat roof of your house. It was not a sin under law to have no parapet around your roof. But if someone sleeping on your rooftop fell off and died, and your house had no parapet, then you were responsible and were bloodguilty, having to flee to a city of refuge. So the sister must make it clear to the worldly man that she is willing to marry him for the sake of the child. If he does not wish to propose to her then the sister merely gets a warning for true fornication. If she refuses to marry him then she is disfellowshipped.
    
9. If a brother has sex with a married woman unprotected and has an emission of semen he is disfellowshipped, whether or not she becomes pregnant, because he is an implied homosexual. You should own up to it. If you do not and two other witnesses can be found to your adultery you will be disfellowshipped.
    
10. If a brother has safe sex with another man's wife he is disfellowshipped as an implied homosexual rapist.
     
11. If a married sister has safe sex with any brother, she is disfellowshipped for her part in causing the brother to be disfellowshipped.
     
12. If a married sister has sex with any man then she is causing her husband to commit a non consensual homosexual act if the man performs orifice penetration on the woman. 
     
13. If a husband does give consent to his wife to sleep with another man and that man performs orifice penetration on the wife then the husband has effectively committed a disfellowshipping homosexual act. In this case both the husband and the wife would be disfellowshipped.

In case you build a new house, you must also make a parapet for your roof, that you may not place bloodguilt upon your house because someone falling might fall from it (Deuteronomy 22:8).

Who would have thought that there was so much law associated with this basic desire? Of course the basic desire for sex is also the mechanism for the creation of life. These laws exist to protect the family unit which protects the children without policing the basic desire or its fulfilment more than is necessary to protect the rights of the child to have a female mother and a male father until it is grown up (20 years old by Hebrew reckoning).

Hypothetically we could logically permit a woman to use a cap rather than the man using a condom (a Dutch Christian suggested this idea wouldn't you know?) This would prevent the joining of the sperm to the egg. But one could hardly argue that the man had not put his sperm in the woman in that case. So we won't permit it right now. The best solution would be for the man to have a condom and the woman to preferably have the cap or less preferably be on the pill (due to health and pollution issues). This would prevent disease, prevent pregnancy, prevent the exchange of fluids except when the thing fell off, but then there is a second line of defence as regards pregnancy and God's law.

There is one final logical observation which we would like to make. The Justice of God is soul for soul, and the penalty for adultery is death. So adultery must involve an abuse of life in order that the death penalty is justified in God's Justice. One cannot get near an abuse of life unless sperm are in a position to meet eggs and create a life. So if no emission of semen occurs into the woman, then no abuse of life can possibly occur, so no death penalty is possible, and since adultery carries this penalty adultery can not have occurred! But homosexuality is the exception to this. 

Here is the trouble with homosexuality. Many people think that it is not so bad as murder. But murder kills only one person (in general), whereas homosexuality through AIDS has killed millions. It is true that AIDS spreads heterosexually as well, but it became an epidemic in the 1990s as the gay plague. And a gay San Francisco doctor claimed on BBC Radio  in 2007, that had his community pushed condoms harder (metaphorically speaking) the epidemic could have been averted. Today 33% of Zimbabweans have AIDS and 25% of South Africans have it too. In all around 50 million people have died from AIDS. This is not all down to homosexuality. But without that practice, would it ever have become an epidemic, or would it have beome an epidemic of such genocidal proportions? This is not the biggest trouble with homosexuality however. 

The biggest problem is that it is an attack on the fundamental building block of all civilized society, namely the family unit.  If this building block crumbles then we have no society and the whole human race descends into chaos, and destroys itself. We are presently doing this, and homosexuality is not the only destructive force acting on the family unit. But in God's wisdom as we see it, the family unit must be protected from this unnatural sexual behaviour.

Simply put every child has two fundamental human rights. The right to have unconditional love throughout its entire childhood from a male parent and the right to have unconditional love throughout its entire childhood from a female parent. These two loving templates are both necessary for a morally sustainable society. If one of these two templates is missing, then the love of that child for half of the human race is fractured. And love is moral sustainability. That is the real danger of homosexuality and of absentee fathers of course. Although homsexuality has a multiplication factor within it which absentee fathers do not have.

So in summary, the position of the Lords' Witnesses is the complete reverse of the position of the Catholic church as regards fornication and adultery! But similar to it as regards homosexuality.

Of course such a position, if adopted by the Catholic Church, would save millions of lives in Africa and around the world, where AIDS has become a forgotten epidemic. This is the practicality, the wisdom, of our God. 

But dear reader, we know that you may thinking. Woh, these LWs are giving carte blanche to everyone to go and sleep around so long as they use a condom and a married woman is not involved! Have they lost the plot or what? Is a condom to be the get out of sin free card?

Well, one of the beautiful things about serving a God who is wiser than we are, is that his wisdom is sometimes a surprise! Another of the beautiful things about his wisdom is that it is most times contrary to what we today regard as politically correct. The over-riding concern of the Christian is not sex, but love, by which we mean selfless, giving love of the type defined in 1 Corinthians 13, read out at many marriage ceremonies. Coveting a neighbour's wife or husband is not a sin, it is an unrighteous desire. It was contrary to one of the ten commandments, and by law is the accurate knowledge of sin. But sin starts with unrighteous desire and God is trying to teach us to police our own desires, so that one day we will not need any laws which are policed by other people.

The over-riding consideration to the couple contemplating an extra marital affair should be God's law, and then love of both husband and wife and children in the immediate family unit of the marriage which they are attacking. Because the first commandment was to love God, and the second was to love everyone else. But in any event, so long as the thing doesn't fall off, it is a whole bunch of sins, but it isn't adultery and neither is it fornication.

Remember this verse in the law of Moses...

18 And you must not take a woman in addition to her sister as a rival to uncover her nakedness, that is, besides her during her
lifetime (Leviticus 18).

The law did not say that you must not take a woman in addition to another woman as a rival to uncover her nakedness. So it is not a sin to sleep with two women in parallel. It is a sin to lie to either of them or to break a monogamous agreement that one might have with either of them. Neither is it a sin for a woman to have two male sexual partners in parallel. It is a sin to worship two opposing Gods. It is not a sin to sleep with two opposing partners. But there again the bible advises not to multiply wives for yourself. So it is not advisable to have two parallel sexual partners.

However at the end of this system of things, Paul's advice should be heeded by women and especially by men...

5 Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry (Colossians 3).

Because Satan is firing the sexual desires of men through pornography and sexual suggestion in most adverts, in most films on the TV and in the cinema, in most newspapers, in lap dancing bars, even on the radio, all over the internet and generally in every form of media and communication. He is flooding the world with the drug of sexual desire, but this is not the only problem. Having created a desire, having got us all addicted to it, he then controls the supply of the fix that we all crave. So Satan is limiting sexual satisfaction by breaking up communities and families so that most people do not meet enough people to find the right partner. He makes prostitution illegal in most countries, to ensure that a man cannot get satisfaction that way, when the law of Moses did not condemn prostitution other than in the case of a father acting as a pimp for his own daughter or in the case of a daughter of a priest - see J11 below. In fact Jesus was descended from Rahab the prostitute on the paternal side and from Judah who slept with Tamar in prostitution to create his ancestral line on both the maternal and the paternal sides. Today both men and women are so caught up chasing after the wind of social and financial status that many have little time and care little for the sexual satisfaction of their partners if they have such partners. 

As a result sex sells as never before. This is a tragic comment on the dissatisfaction and frustration of all of us. There is hardly an issue of a woman's magazine which does not have the word 'sex' on its cover. This is a tragedy for women and for men. May God bring the day soon when we are both so satisfied that putting the word 'sex' on the cover of a magazine has absolutely no effect of its circulation and where if you put up an internet porn site, no one cares to visit it.

As Christians we cannot change this world much. But we can defend ourselves against its traps. If you become addicted to sex then you lose your objectivity and your spirituality and you are taken out of the fight for your spiritual life and for the spiritual lives of your brothers and sisters. That is what Satan wants.  So women, please put your belly buttons back under your t-shirts and your thighs back under your skirts. Your sexual power is being used to kill mankind's spirituality. If you frustrate 100 guys for each guy you satisfy, you are about as useful to mankind as a Cocaine habit. And men, remember that God looks better than all women and he knows what is best for you having invented both women and sex and both love and happiness. So do not be conned by the great drug pusher himself.

It seems appropriate here to quote Madonna here, who is said this in 2007...

“I can write the greatest songs and make the most fabulous films and be a fashion icon and conquer the world, but if there isn’t a world to conquer, what’s the point?” Madonna said, according to the paper. “I’ve just come to a place in my life where I’m trying to really see what the big picture is and where my energy is better spent, and that’s one area I’m really concerned about.” - Madonna

Or as Jesus (the other guy who hung on a cross for a while) said...

26 For what benefit will it be to a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16).

[J10.1] How precisely does one join one's flesh with a woman?

We know from the previous section that defiling a woman with semen joins the man to her. Paul says as much...

16 What! Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For, The 2, says he, will be one flesh. (1Corinthians6).

The reason God regards a man who sleeps with a harlot as having joined his flesh to hers is that his sperm is placed in a position to fertilise her egg. God constructively fixes the two with being joined together because they have put themselves into a position where this may well occur. But by the same token, if the girl has a period and does not get pregnant then she is no longer one flesh with the man since the possibility of their two gene pools mixing has gone. So a one night stand leads to a joining of two fleshes until the next period or permanently if a baby is produced which reaches the 10th week, when it becomes a human soul. 

However with a marriage things are different. A man and his wife become one flesh when the marriage is consummated since at that point the two gene pools are in a position to become mixed. But they further have an agreement to only mix their gene pools with each other, until death parts them, so they remain one flesh until that agreement is ended. this has nothing to do with a registry office or a church wedding it is the agreement between the man and the woman that makes them one flesh (upon consummation).

There is a technicality here. If two men sleep with the same girl then they are both joined to her flesh until either she has a period or the DNA of her baby is determined!

What is marriage scripturally?

Now that we know what it is to become one flesh we can describe what a marriage is in scriptural terms.

24 That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh (Genesis 2).

It is an gene pool mixing agreement (must become one flesh), which is exclusive and lasts until one or other party dies or until the exclusivity is breached (must stick to his wife).

If two people agree to live together and only have sex with each other, for the time being, this is not a marriage. However if they agree to stick to each other as well then they are in scriptural terms married. The church and the registry office are dressing strictly speaking.

[J11] Prostitution and the Definition of Loose Conduct

And where a man takes a woman and her mother, it is loose conduct. They should burn him and them in the fire, in order that loose conduct may not continue in your midst (Leviticus 20:14).

[J12] Shunning is Hateful & Satanic

[J13]  Abortion

22 And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children [plural, in case she has twins] do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him [singular, the one who started the brawl, or whose fault the brawl was] without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him, and he must give it through the justices. 
23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul [if the baby or the woman dies], 
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth [if the woman is hurt or indeed the baby], 
25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow (Exodus 21).

Notice that the child has to come out and it has to be reconiseable as a child and has to be dead for the death penalty to apply. So what would a Hebrew recognise as a 'child'? Would a 12 centimetre fetus in the 4th month be sufficient?? Would such a thing come out like child does?? Certainly a 6cm fetus in the 10th week would be pushing it! 5th month minimum for the mother to be able to produce something that looked pretty human we would suggest.

There is an EEG brain activity burst around the 22nd week and the brain halves are connected at that time, so abortion in the 22nd week looks like a bad idea. But abortion in the 20th week, may be just about OK. We think the spirit of God enters perhaps between weeks 20 and 22. Left hemisphere activity indicates the presence of the human spirit. Prior to that the fetus has an animalistic spirit. It gets an upgrade from animal to human when God 'blows into its nostrils', which we think may stand for the human spirit upgrade entering both halves of the brain.

Here is where some lateral thinking is required. Jesus gave life to Abraham's seed in the midst of his covenant. God himself we know resided in the midst of Israel. God sent his spirit, Jesus Christ, into the Midst of 'Abraham' meaning his covenanted sons. So the midst prophecy U100 may well apply to human gestation. 

The Spirit of God enters a fetus in the Midst of its gestation

5 Or does it seem to you that the scripture says to no purpose: It is with a tendency to envy that the spirit which has taken up residence within us [our divinely given personal spirit] keeps longing? (James 4).
 

Day0                                 Day133                                 Day266
Conception                       God's spirit is downloaded   Baby born
X__________________________________________X
   133 days on average  X 133 days on average

7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath/spirit of life, and the man came to be a living soul (Genesis 2).

3 While my breath is yet whole within me, And the spirit of God is in my nostrils (Job 27).

22 Everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died (Genesis 7).

4 God's own spirit made me, And the Almighty's own breath proceeded to bring me to life (Job 33).

45 It is even so written: The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit [a spirit of life] (1 Corinthians15).

Jesus was blown into Abraham's nostrils in the midst of his covenant. We are taking the entry of the spirit of life into the gestation of the sons of Abraham in the 1AC, who are yet to be born into the the next world, as an archetype for the entry of the spirit of life into a gestating fetus who is yet to be born into this world

So God himself may well send his spirit in the midst of the 38 week gestational period. If so then the fetus becomes a human after 133 days, i.e. 19 weeks after conception. This would fit the data above, namely that interhemispherical connections are made, thalamocortical connections are made, the foetus is a week or two or three away from big EEG activity, and it looks sufficiently like a human for a Hebrew under law to regard its death as murder of a human. So the LW position is that abortion for a 266 day gestation standard baby is not murder up to the 132nd day of gestation and it is murder on the 134th day of gestation. However, there is variation between the development of human babies so we need to insert a margin of uncertainty here.

Let us introduce a margin of error of plus or minus 2 weeks here for the sake of safe legislation. It is true that babies are delivered sometimes 3 weeks early and sometime 5 weeks late, but their development does not lag or lead by anything like these figures. So the LWs will not regard an abortion as murder if it is carried out up to the 119th day (17 complete weeks). We will regard it as murder if it is carried out on or after the 147th day (21 complete weeks). It may be murder in the intervening period, but we do not have enough data to make that charge so we will not ourselves legislate for abortions in that period. But be sure that the angels will, one way or the other. So we recommend in the strongest possible terms that the 17th week is the last opportunity for a termination. 

We would also recommend to governments that they set the limit at 17 weeks. The UK recently debated a reduction from 24 to 16 weeks, that failed. A reduction to 17 weeks would be a very good idea. We have to say that God is very pragmatic and it appears that medical science was pretty near to the mark with the 16 week suggestion. The LWs would like to take this rare opportunity to thank the medical people behind this sensible suggestion.

However our overall advice would be do not have an abortion, have the baby and get it adopted, there are thousands of parents looking for babies. Jesus was essentially adopted by his parents.

Baby Rights

But as soon as the baby reaches the mid point of its gestation, then abortion brings a death penalty (if not from the congregation then from the angels - who may/will cease softening the heart of those involved, and they may/will fall speedily into another sin which brings the penalty that should have occurred for the abortion. It is not a coincidence that this coincides precisely with the 4th missed period. When a woman misses her second period she definitely knows that she is pretty sure she is pregant and at the third missed period she must be pregnant. And the 4th missed period makes 4 witnesses! That must be enough. In this way accidental murder of a baby is avoided. God designed the embryo so that it would not become a human soul until after the 4th missed period. Had he not done so he would in our opinion be guilty of negligent homicide, since someone might hit the woman or the woman might fall over and kill the baby in innocence without knowing that it was there.

All of this means that Coils and the Pill, and even the morning after pill, are not murder. One cannot murder something which does not have a heartbeat or has not taken a breath and one is not a murderer of a human until God's spirit has entered the foetus.  Likewise if you commit adultery negligently, whilst using a condom see [J11], then if the woman falls pregnant but has a miscarriage within the first 17 weeks, then there is no penalty from God, because your accidental negligence did not lead to an abuse of life, in the sense of abuse of a human soul, because no human soul ever came into existence. But deliberate adultery carries instant disfellowshipping. 

However a Christian woman should not seek an abortion in the first 17 weeks of gestation, the first 19 weeks from the last period, without the consent of the husband or fiance. However if there is no agreement to marry and no marriage, then the father has no say in the matter, and she can make the decision herself. If the father is in the church he must propose anyway, and if the mother is in the church she must accept his proposal unless she was raped, because the purpose of marriage is to provide a secure environment for children.

If she is engaged or married, then she should only act on the father's consent. If she does not then the husband must first take the matter up with his wife. If she is not repentant, then he should return to her with at least one more brothers or sisters and try again to have her repent. 

15 Moreover if your brother commits a sin go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brothers. 
16 But if he does not listen, take along one or two more in order that at the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation [that means the elders]. 
17 If he does not listen even to the congregation let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector (Mattew 18).

If a mother aborts in the first 17 weeks of gestation against the wishes of the father who has proposed then she has committed a theft of a foetus and she has rejected the headship of her husband. Both of these are sins against the father so it is up to him how to deal with it. He should follow the procedure of Matthew 18:15-17. Might is not right. The woman should not abuse her power over the child, just as a man should not abuse his power over his wife (if he has any which has not been removed by the state these days). Why do people think that the state is more loving than a husband?

[J14]  Our Name: The Lords' Witnesses

[15] Hair and Prayer

Here is an interesting section as regards congregational authority. Lets have a look at 1 Corinthians 11:

1 Become imitators of me, even as I am of Christ.
2 Now I commend you because in all things you have me in mind and you are holding fast the traditions just as I handed [them] on to you.
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.
4 Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head;
5 but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a [woman] with a shaved head.
6 For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God's image and glory; but the woman is man's glory.
8 For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man;
9 and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.
10 That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels.
11 Besides, in connection with [the] Lord neither is woman without man nor man without woman.
12 For just as the woman is out of the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are out of God.
13 Judge for your own selves: Is it fitting for a woman to pray uncovered to God?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him;
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her. Because her hair is given her instead of a headdress.
16 However, if any man seems to dispute for some other custom, we have no other, neither do the congregations of God (1 Corinthians 11).

Paul is saying that if a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered then she might as well be shorn. He knows that such a thing is disgusting, so he is saying she should cover her head. He is not suggesting punishment barbers in the congregations.

Oh - oh. If you are having a bad hair day, then this section is definitely not for you! 

Now the man is made in God's image and is God's glory. The woman is not said anywhere to be made in God's image and is man's glory. Now the man was not created for the sake of the woman (although modern urban society would have you believe that he was), but the woman was created for the sake of the man. Likewise God was not created for the sake of the angels (or at all) but the angels were created for the sake of God. They too are God's glory and the loyal ones are his wife, the holy spirit. The woman is therefore in the image of the holy spirit (which is the collection of all the loyal angels acting in unison, like a wave).

The woman therefore has a sign of authority from the man, just as the angels have a sign of authority from God. In the case of the woman, this sign is long hair, in the case of the angels it is some symbolic equivalent of long hair. Possibly long term submission to God's will. This is why Paul says: 'because of the angels'. The loyal angels know that the woman represents the holy spirit, which is them, and so the physical woman should demonstrate her submission to her husband or future husband or past husband physically as the angels demonstrate their submission to God spiritually.

So all of this means exactly what it says. Women should only pray and prophesy with their heads 'covered' and men should not pray or prophesy with their heads 'covered'.

Paul goes on to explain that long hair is 'instead of a headdress', so long hair is a head covering in the case of women. So women do not have to put a shawl on if they already have long hair. But unfortunately for men, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so long hair must also be a head covering for them (as a sister joyfully pointed out!) So men should not pray or prophesy with long hair. And women with short hair should wear a head covering when praying or prophesying.

But what about the Nazirites, like Samson? They were told not to let a razor pass over their head! Well they were under a vow to Jehovah, which involved them amongst other things not being and not getting married. This is not explicitly stated but it is implied by Numbers 6:

6 All the days of his keeping separate to Jehovah he may not come toward any dead soul.
7 Not even for his father or his mother or his brother or his sister may he defile himself when they die, because the sign of his Naziriteship to his God is upon his head.
8 All the days of his Naziriteship he is holy to Jehovah (Numbers 6).

The Nazirite man is effectively married to God and hence the long hair as a sign of submission to him through a covenant. This is a physical headship of Jehovah over him. A Nazirite man, since he is not himself able to be a physical head over a woman, as God is over the holy spirit, is not in God's image in that sense, so he can have long hair.

Men have no head covering, i.e. have short hair, because we, being in God's image as regards headship, are potential or actual heads over women.

So here is the arbitrary hair length law of the LWs. It is arbitrary, and it is deliberately arbitrary, and left to be arbitrary by God, because it is merely a sign of acceptance of authority. And his authority over hair, and actually quite a lot more than hair (but not all his authority), is through his human priesthood on earth. So we are setting it as follows:

[A]  LW Men should have hair no longer than the bottom of their collars when praying or prophesying.
[B]  LW Women with hair shorter than the top of their collars should wear a head covering when praying and prophesying.

Bible decoding and general bible interpretation is prophesying today. For it is like Joel and Peter have said:

17 And in the last days, God says, I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams (Acts 2).

This is the first physical law for the LWs other than the one or two mandatory celebrations (and it is hopefully the last). Hopefully one of these things is sufficient for the angels and for God.

So how do we enforce this? Well at full congregational meetings, if an LW man or a woman breaks this 'law', he or she will be asked to respect it. If he or she does respect it during the rest of that meeting then that will be the end of the matter. If he or she does not respect it during the rest of that meeting then he or she will be asked to leave that meeting. That is it.

We will not give official warnings or throw people out of the LWs because of the length of their hair. Neither will we keep a record of 'hair infringements' at previous meetings etc. This matter will be dealt with on a meeting by meeting basis only and will not be 'enforced' upon non LWs. But neither will we tolerate what we believe is an abuse of God's law during full congregational meetings. So if for example Bryan May of Queen became an LW (perhaps deciding that he does in fact want to live forever, if for no other reason than to keep the fans happy in the Kingdom of God), and if he chose to keep his hair long, then he would not be able to speak out, either asking questions or engaging in debate in the LW equivalent of Question Time in matters of prophecy at full congregational meetings only. If he did speak out we would ask him to leave that meeting only. He could however sing at such meetings! Perhaps he could put it up in a bun?

[16] Spirit Media

Of course Christians should never consult with spirit mediums (media). 

31 Do not turn yourselves to the spirit mediums, and do not consult professional foretellers of events, so as to become unclean by them. I am Jehovah your God (Leviticus 19).

6 As for the soul who turns himself to the spirit mediums and the professional foretellers of events so as to have immoral
intercourse with them, I shall certainly set my face against that soul and cut him off from among his people (Leviticus 20).

27 And as for a man or woman in whom there proves to be a mediumistic spirit or spirit of prediction, they should be put to death without fail. They should pelt them to death with stones. Their own blood is upon them (Leviticus 20).

10 There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer,
11 or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead.
12 For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you (Deuteronomy 18).

Consulting with a spirit medium is 'immoral intercourse' and is treated just like fornication. Every condemnation of spiritism is in the plural. One trip to a spirit medium does not result in disfellowshipping, it results in a warning, just like true fornication.

But what do you do if a spirit medium comes to the congregation meetings and represents that he or she is not a spirit medium?

We are not the thought police, but we must guard against influence by spirit mediums. Spirit mediums often start by saying something very spiritual and true to get you hooked. Then they tell you that you will be run over by a bus two years next Tuesday, which destroys your life. You then go into a panic and people have been known to kill themselves because they cannot live with the worry about possibly fulfilling the absurd prediction. Here is how Jesus dealt with them:

23 Also, at that immediate time there was in their synagogue a man under the power of an unclean spirit, and he shouted,
24 saying: What have we to do with you, Jesus you Nazarene? Did you come to destroy us? I know exactly who you are, the Holy One of God.
25 But Jesus rebuked it, saying: Be silent, and come on out of him! (Mark 1).

The point is that the spirit medium was declaring a great sacred secret which was true. But Jesus shut it up. He knew that the game of the medium is to establish a spiritual credibility by revealing a truth and then having won the trust of the victim the abuse and misleading will begin. The abusive husband first gets the confidence of his wife, then he gets control of his wife through this confidence, then he starts his abuse. Star Wars fans will recognise that this was the tactic of Count Dooku when he was trying to turn Obi Wan to the dark side. He revealed that the senate was being controlled by a Sith Lord (Darth Sidius), an amazing revelation and a true statement. He then falsely represented that together with Obi Wan, he would destroy the Sith. But of course had Obi Wan agreed, Count Dooku would have said, well, yes, we must destroy the Sith, it is our foremost priority, but before we do, there is just one little thing I would like us to do first. And so it would go on. In fact Star Wars II is a very accurate representation of how Satanic corruption works. It is not a   Satanic film, it is an enlightening and educational film in this regard. The screenwriters rare wisdom do have.

Here are two things to look out for with spirit mediums who come to meetings:

[1]   They use the phrase "I have been told". God does not audibly instruct Christians about spiritual truths. He instructs exclusively through the word of God, which is the bible, and of course through nature. It is true that Jesus spoke audibly to Paul, but this was in the days of the physical gifts of the spirit. In those days there was genuine demonic possession and genuine demonic expulsion and genuine resurrection of the dead, and genuine curing of disabilities etc. These physical signs were passed on by the laying on of the hands by the apostles, they ended around a generation after the end of the first presence in 119Elul (actually at the first rapture in 153 AD). For example, today, the first new covenant saints know that they are new covenant saints, but they do not know how they know that they are new covenant saints! None of them have heard an audible voice saying: Hi, this is Jesus speaking, you are a new covenant saint, goodbye.

[2]    They say things like: I know who I am, do you know who you are? Implying some type of heavenly existence. Born again Christians do have a heavenly alternative existence, in the form of an associated angelic body. But they have absolutely no consciousness of this extra soul.

The way to deal with someone whom you suspect might be a spirit media, if you are not sure, is to ask them to prove their assertions from the bible. For instance we had one who came to our LW meetings representing that he was no longer a spirit medium, but then he told certain people that he was the angel Michael. But he had earlier admitted that he had less bible knowledge than many LWs. Obviously Michael would have more bible knowledge because he was the editor of the whole bible. So the bible is the touchstone to use when anyone makes a spiritual claim.

The purpose of this section is not to start a witch hunt for spirit mediums. In fact if a spirit medium is genuinely trying to cease being a medium and find God, then we will help them as much as we can on this journey. But they must be honest with us about what their problems are.

[17] Protocol for non LWs at meetings

The short answer is that there is no protocol to follow. The longer answer is that the congregation elders can decide to ask you to respect any of our laws whilst you are at congregation meetings, if they feel, in their opinion, that by your not respecting a particular Christian law, you are damaging or endangering the congregation. Of course they have no authority over non LWs outside of our meetings. They should not ask you to respect any laws unless you first exhibit a potentially disruptive or dangerous disrespect for that law, in their opinion, during the meeting. At that time they should only ask you to obey that particular law, and only ask you to obey it whilst you attend our meetings.

But if, for example a prostitute wanted to learn about God and she came to a meeting, no one would would place any burden on her, unless she started to solicit for business within the meeting. If she did, then she would be asked not to practice her trade during meetings.

[18] Should I beat my kids?

There are various laws in various countries which seek to limit the parents rights here. We cannot advise on these laws. We can advise on bible law as we understand it. The relevant scriptures here are:

15 Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him (Proverbs 22).
13 Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die (Proverbs 23)
15 The rod and reproof are what give wisdom; but a boy let on the loose will be causing his mother shame (Proverbs 29)

1 In case a dispute arises between men, and they have presented themselves for the judgment, they must also judge them and pronounce the righteous one righteous and pronounce the wicked one wicked
2 And it must occur that if the wicked one deserves to be beaten, the judge must also have him laid prostrate and given strokes before him by number to correspond with his wicked deed.
3 With forty strokes he may beat him. He should add none, for fear he should continue to beat him with many strokes in addition to these and your brother is actually disgraced in your eyes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3).

48 But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, 'My master is delaying,'
49 and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards (Matthew 24).

45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, 'My master delays coming,' and should start to beat the boys and the girls/maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk (Luke 12).

13 He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite.
14 I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son. When he does wrong, I will also reprove him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of Adam (2 Samuel 7).

20 And in case a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one actually dies under his hand, that one is to be avenged without fail.
21 However, if he lingers for a day or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is his money (Exodus 21).

We are not under the law of Moses any more, so the penalties of the law, such as stoning or beating with 40 strokes less one, no longer apply. Although in a dispute between men, the principle that one is righteous and the other is wicked still holds true today. There is no 'knock for knock' or expediency or "let's not blame anyone" or "oh it was everybodies fault" in God's justice. There is no 'collective responsibility' in the sense that no individual can be blamed. One is right and the other is wrong. 

However, in the case of females, all of the above shows us that nowhere in the bible is the beating of daughters, or wives with rods proposed. So let us state categorically that daughters and wives should not be beaten with sticks or with any implements in fact. 

However the proverbs of Solomon are not a part of the Law of Moses, which Jesus ended as a true from of worship. 

So plainly 'mere boys' can be beaten with a rod if the parent deems it necessary. Now, we all know that girls behave badly as well as boys. And the principle of corporal punishment cannot only apply only to boys, since after all we are both the same species! So we therefore deduce that 'mere girls' may only be beaten with the hand. The bible does not propose such discipline explicitly, and it describes it as evil when applied to boys or girls or maidservants as an abuse of power. But the implication of the prescription of the rod for the boy is that the hand is suitable for the girl. Furthermore boys do beat each other with fists whereas girls slap each other with hands (well they used to until Buffy the vampire slayer appeared anyway!)

This does not mean that parents should regularly beat their sons with rods or their daughters with hands. It means that as a last resort the bible prescribes it. The Hebrew word (r(n) means male infant, or male child. But to the Hebrew, a son was a boy until he was 20 years old when he could be registered into the army. For Ishmael is described as a boy when he was 18 years old. He was 13 years old when Isaac was born, and he was evicted with his mother by Abraham for his poking fun at Isaac, at Sarah's insistence and at God's command when Isaac was weaned (i.e. 5 years old).

17 At that God heard the voice of the boy, and God's angel called to Hagar out of the heavens and said to her: What is the matter with you, Hagar? Do not be afraid, because God has listened to the voice of the boy there where he is.
18 Get up, lift up the boy and take hold of him with your hand, because I shall constitute him a great nation (Genesis 21).

So the best we can see is that the bible explicitly or implicitly prescribes:

Last resort beating with a rod or other implement for sons under 20
Last resort beating with the hand only for daughters under 20.

We mean a beating on the backside not on the head or feet or back! The bible prescribes NO OTHER BEATING of any sort for Christian children. However with the speed at which kids grow up today the age limit should obviously be lower.

If a mother or father or husband or wife went further than this, we would not give them a warning, but they are not presiding over their household in a fine manner, so the father would not be eligible to be a ministerial servant or an elder. He or she also might have a problem with social services or the domestic violence unit of the police. 

But make no mistake God himself gave us pain to teach us, and parents are permitted by God to use the same teaching method on their children. Sick governments who interfere with parents rights whilst presiding over child care services which regularly abuse children physically and sexually and internationally should stop telling families what to do and start listening to families as regards how their own child care services are run. If not then all families will end up with the discipline of an inner city classroom, i.e. no discipline at all. Then we will be in the situation where children with guts have to stand up to bullies because no parent or teacher is permitted to by law. Of course some of these children lose their lives while standing up to bullies which the parents and teachers are forbidden by law from dealing with effectively in the UK. If you think that beating is wrong then read the news stories of the very few children born who cannot feel any pain at all (this being a medical deficiency). The parents of these kids would give anything for them to be able to feel pain.

Of course UK law, as of late 2004, only allows a soft smack for any child. But this is at odds with the bible. In a similar vein, the EU now requires their commissioners to espouse pro homosexual views, such is the lobbying power of the gays (they give Haliburton a good run for its money). Again this is at odds with the bible. Paul and Moses would strongly disagree. But if the homosexual lobby tells the EU commissioners how to think, they will soon be telling them how to act, then we will have 20 homosexual perverts running the EU, which would be very appropriate since then their sexual corruption would then match their financial corruption. The EU president could then be a queen perhaps? 

As regards husbands and wives, they are one flesh, one body. From a sexual standpoint Paul says:

3 Let the husband render to [his] wife her due, but let the wife also do likewise to [her] husband.
4 The wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does, likewise, also, the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but his wife does.
5 Do not be depriving each other [of it], except by mutual consent for an appointed time, that you may devote time to prayer and may come together again, that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-regulation (1 Corinthians 7).

That stops sexual power games going on and is very equitable. But the principle of verse 4 does not only apply sexually. The principle is that since they are one flesh, they kind of share each other's bodies. So the wife can use the husband's body when she needs it, just as he can, such as to defend herself or lift the heavy bags. In fact she has authority to insist on these things in the case of a definite need for her. But likewise the husband has authority to insist on using the wife's body for what he definitely needs from her. The two are supposed to be fulfilling each other's needs, not playing power games with each other's desires.

Obviously husbands and wives should not beat each other as a punishment or in fights or as a power game at all since they are one flesh, one body. However should a husband wish to slap his wife's behind with the hand for pleasure or vice versa, then the principle that Paul is expounding is that one partner should accommodate the other in these matters unless it is a real problem (obviously this has to be consensual). However going further than this and using instruments to strike your partner, even consensually, or tying them up etc. is abusive. The bible does not recommend such things for women at all and only recommended corporal punishment with a rod for a wicked man who was in the wrong in a dispute with another man under law, as a kind of judicial alternative to a punch up. 

The kids and the wife are the possessions of the husband in biblical terms. The courts in the UK have reversed this historical balance of power in all family relationships that has pertained for millennia by giving the family home and kids to the wife in the event of a divorce which they grant within 3 months on pretty much any grounds at all. One understands why the courts do this, it is one step thinking. The courts reason that the kids need the mother more. But the second step in the thought process is that the mother loves the kids the most, so she will not leave her kids if they are given to the husband. Whereas the husband will give up on his kids if the court takes them away from him and gives them to the mother (all credit to Father's for Justice). So giving the kids to the husband ensures that the family stays together. So the courts are effectively destroying families and stealing the fathers from kids in broken homes. 

They also, along with the media, especially the TV, encourage women to see middle aged men as at best equals in family authority to the woman and at worst as irrelevant incompetent and unreliable providers who do a worse job than the state. Wicked men then take advantage of this and get out the minute they see a pregnancy, leaving single mothers to attempt to bring up teenage boys by themselves, which is very hard indeed and very damaging both to the mother and to the boy. On the other hand, many good men are forced to compromise and hand headship over to their wives under the ever present threat of said court action in a divorce. The courts are of course sexist in favour of the woman to use politically correct parlance, but being sexually prejudiced against men is acceptable, just as being racially prejudice against whites is acceptable or being sexually prejudiced against heterosexuals or against homophobes is acceptable in this hypocritical and pharisaical world that has moved beyond the bible and reaped misery for millions as a result.

The husbands then become bitter and nonchalant about the whole family deal and if the family does manage to stay together it is not a happy place. The trouble is that women go for physical status and security and the state has more status than their husbands have and can offer more security than their husbands can in general. The state is basically competing with the husband for control of the family. It is very very sick indeed to pass laws which cause the woman to rely on the state rather than her husband. It is the equivalent of the boss stealing your wife. Neither nature nor Jehovah gave either the state or the church the capability to produce physical babies. So we must both tread very carefully when exercising authority over parents to whom nature or God most definitely did give this capability. 

[19] Bigamy and the Latter Day Saints

There is a very simple reason why a woman cannot have two husbands. It is headship. A woman cannot have two heads. God created no animal with two heads (except a certain snakes). A man however can have two wives, but the bible speaks against it as follows:

17 He should also not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside; nor should he increase silver and gold for himself very much (Deuteronomy 17).

2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach (1 Timothy 3).

6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly (Titus 1).

So a man cannot be a ministerial servant or an elder is he has two wives. But he can be in the congregation. Obviously he might be in prison in many countries!

[20] Advice for JWs who are thinking of becoming LWs

This is a hard section to write. But the basic concept is simple. The rank and file JWs are for the most part God fearing and faithful. But Satan has corrupted their leaders entirely. There are some major psychological problems that JWs face in their journey into the LWs. As JWs you are told that the faithful and discreet slave (FDS) will never as a group go wrong. You are told that 'certain brothers' may fall away, but the FDS itself cannot lose faith. You are told that the FDS is the 'Wide awake John Class', the channel for all true bible understanding. You have believed that the way God explains the bible to his people today, is that he tells Jesus, Jesus tells the governing body, the governing body tells the writing committee, and the writing committee puts it in the Watchtower. You have believed that to get through Armageddon all you have to do is stay loyal not to God, and not to your master Jesus, but to God's 'Spirit Directed Organisation'. You have made no distinction between the Watchtower and Jesus and God in this respect.

You have not been made aware of the fact that the Watchtower did not itself interpret Daniel 4 as having a second meaning relating to the Gentile Times, it was Reverend John Aquila Brown who did that in 1823. You have not been made aware that the Watchtower was not the first Christian group to identify the wild beast of Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 with the League of nations in 1920. You have not been made aware that the Watchtower was not the first organisation to realise in 1942 that Revelation 17 implied that the League of Nations which was abyssed during the WWII would be reformed after the war. In short you have not understood the humble veracity of Brother Russell's words, when he said that his work was more of a collation of other peoples ideas, than it was a series of personal understandings on his part.

When faced with the realisation that the Watchtower has mislead you and lied to you so badly, the temptation is to react against them completely and throw away everything they have ever taught you. When you realise that the very definition of the harlot riding a beast, is an NGO being associated with the UN. And when you realise that the Watchtower was an NGO associated with the UN for 10 years. Then you realise that it is a now part of Babylon the great. When you remember the incessant condemnations made in almost every meeting in every kingdom hall of either Babylon or of the beast, you become sickened at their duplicity and their hypocrisy.

How can an organisation that dedicates every person and every brick in every building to Jehovah, sign an agreement with the wild beast, to promote and support the ideals UN charter? This is gross idolatry given the prior dedication and gross hypocrisy. Then when you finally see that God has rejected the Watchtower, because this jumping on the back of the beast was the transgression causing desolation to the Watchtower as referred to in Daniel 8, you wish to reject the Watchtower yourself totally.

Now at this point you are very very vulnerable indeed. You are vulnerable spiritually, because your spiritual universe has exploded. You are vulnerable socially because you are going to be shunned by most of your friends. You are vulnerable psychologically, because the Watchtower today is a terrible control freak, and you are not used to the mental freedom you are about to 'enjoy'. Being realistic you can become be a very easy target for various spiritual, emotional, sociological and psychological disasters. We have through bitter experience learned that careful advice is needed here. Please remember and keep a tight hold on to the following things:

[1]    The Watchtower was the true religion, the 3rd FDS, from 1918Nisan16 until 1995Tishri15. Then it was a true religion until 2004Elul14 when it became a false religion.

[2]    You have not 'wasted your life' by joining the JWs. They were God's true people, they just got corrupted as all but the last true religion eventually do. 

[3]     Some of the JW teachings today are wrong and satanic, others are still correct. So, however tempting, please do not throw away the baby with the bath water here! You will have learned many useful biblical truths and you will have developed many good behavioural patterns from the JWs. Your spiritual journey has taken you through the JWs, and this is a GOOD THING because, if you join both true religions in a presence, and avoid all the false ones, then you get to pick up your bed, you get a definite resurrection into the kingdom of God (either from the dead or whilst you are living through the rapture). There is the mercy and wisdom of the creator. Joining two true religions is enough for him. The blessing of Abraham is yours. 

But, you will also have picked up some incorrect interpretations and you will have picked up some bad (pharasaical, over controlling) behavioural patterns. So you need to be grown up about this and sort out the good from the bad. Please try not to violently swing from one extreme to the other. God has provided a second true religion in this presence for those who love him more than they love his fallen priesthood in the JWs. He is still teaching you, and  perhaps this is your most important lesson, that you must love him with your own heart, you must follow him with your own mind, you must serve him with your own strength and then you, yes you personally, will make the decision which enables God to save your own soul through Jesus. For then you will be a son not of a Bethel in Brooklyn, but of almighty God himself in heaven. It is the words he first spoke to Abraham that we quote to all JWs:

1 Go your way out of your country and from your relatives and from the house of your father to the country that I shall show you (Genesis 12:1).

For 'country' read 'religion'. If you truly are a son of Abraham, you will make the journey to this land you know little about, the land of the LWs.

[4]    The LWs have far fewer physical restrictions and far fewer physical requirements than the JWs. But we are not an amorphous free for all. We have less laws, but we hope to enforce those that we have more equitably. You will be free to explore other religions, other bible interpretations, other relationships with people etc. You may not be used to having this freedom. You will be tempted to go overboard. But the sons and daughters of God are free in this way. You will find scriptures which look like they are contradicting established LW understandings. That is fine, try and reconcile them with our understandings, but if you cannot, then please email us. We encourage positive debate about the meaning of the bible. We are often wrong.

One more thing... Please don't call it the passover the 'Memorial'. It is not a funeral service. It is a celebration! We call it the last supper, or cups and covenants, or the passover celebration.

[21] Disclaimer for unofficial LW publications

This website is the entirety of the official understandings of the LWs. We plan to keep it that way. However the site is rather academic and a bit hard to digest for the man in the street. So we expect shortly to produce easy guides to various parts of the site. These will be official LW publications. However we do not want to stop individual LWs from writing their own guides to this site. If you are an LW and you wish to publish some of your own material either on the web or in a book or booklet or howsoever, you are welcome to do so subject to the following condition:

Please make sure that your material contains the following dislaimer: "This material has not been written or produced by the Lords' Witnesses, it is not an official LW publication."

[22] Advertise publicly but teach privately

Jesus gave his sermon on the mount, on a mountain, not in a public square. He gave it to his disciples only, not to the crowds. Neither today is it given to the crowds, it is given to those who read the bible. He taught in the temple and in the synagogue to those who showed an interest by coming there. He did not teach in the market square...

19 He will not wrangle, nor cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the broad ways.
20 No bruised reed will he crush, and no smoldering flaxen wick will he extinguish, until he sends out justice with success (Matthew 12).

So Jesus did not teach in public places. So likewise although we could agree to appear on chat shows etc. we should not teach to a general TV audience. But we can advertise to such an audience or we could run a TV advertising campaign which did not teach. Paul did teach in the Areopagus, the public speaking place of Athens, but he was dragged there, he did not choose to go there himself.

19 So they laid hold of him and led him to the Areopagus, saying: Can we get to know what this new teaching is which is spoken by you? (Acts 17).

Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees publicly:

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying:
2 The Scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses (Matthew 23).

So we can publicly condemn false religion and bad secular leaders (for the Pharisees were also the secular rulers of the Jews), since their activities are publicly known.

1 Look! My servant, on whom I keep fast hold! My chosen one, [whom] my soul has approved! I have put my spirit in him. Justice to the nations is what he will bring forth.
2 He will not cry out or raise [his voice], and in the street he will not let his voice be heard.
3 No crushed reed will he break; and as for a dim flaxen wick, he will not extinguish it. In trueness he will bring forth justice.
4 He will not grow dim nor be crushed until he sets justice in the earth itself; and for his law the islands themselves will keep waiting (Isaiah 42).

17 that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, who said:
18 Look! My servant whom I chose, my beloved, whom my soul approved! I will put my spirit upon him, and what justice is he will make clear to the nations.
19 He will not wrangle, nor cry aloud [over teachings], nor will anyone hear his voice in the broad ways [teaching].
20 No bruised reed will he crush, and no smoldering flaxen wick will he extinguish, until he sends out justice with success.
21 Indeed, in his name nations will hope (Matthew 12).

Of course the literal fulfilment of both of these scriptures was Jesus Christ. A bruised reed is a damaged religious leader or a damaged morally upright person, a smouldering flaxen wick is a flickering spiritual light, a person who is just managing to keep shining spiritually. But the second meaning, the word symbolic meaning has two fulfilments one for Isaiah and one for Matthew, by the parallel account principle. And Isaiah is fulfilled in FDS2 and Matthew 12 is fulfilled in FDS4. So whereas the first true religion, FDS1, which became the Catholic church when it was rejected by God in around 76/77 AD, did crush and extinguish the weak and the damaged, the second true religion did not. and whereas the Watchtower, the 3rd true religion, FDS3, likewise trampled upon the sick, shunning them and marking them and calling them not very spiritual etc, FDS4 do not do that. The word 'servant' is repeated twice, so the word symbolic meaning of it is different from the singular human servant Jesus, so it is a composite servant an FDS. FDS2 and FDS4 look after the weak ones in their churches. But also we have a different method of evangelising to FDS1 and FDS3. We do not wrangle, nor cry aloud, nor is our voice heard in the broadways. We do it the way Jesus did it. He did not stand on the street corner and preach to all and sundry. He did sent out people to do that, but these were in the first true religion. Jesus' technique, which our church follows, is best described by him...

20 Jesus answered him: I have spoken [about my teachings] to the world publicly. I always taught in a synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret (John 18).

Jesus spoke publicly but taught 'privately' in a synagogue or in a temple. So we only teach people or groups of people who have chosen to listen. But we can advertise or talk generally about the teachings to anyone. We do not do a one hour television commercial about our understandings, since many of those watching have not chosen to listen they just happen to be looking at that channel on the TV. We could take a small advert inviting them to come and be taught, however. Our understandings are very powerful and should only be given to interested people. We do not want to give them to our enemies. The broad way today is the TV or the Radio or the Newspaper. The internet is not a broad way, it is just a very large electronic library.

We must not cast our pearls before people who have not chosen to listen. I should not take a large advert in a newspaper explaining our complicated teachings, However I could take an advert inviting people to look at our complicated teachings. We could do door to door ministry so long as we do not attempt to teach someone who is not interested. The door to door ministry is an advert for a bible study. Likewise we would not get involved in heated arguments about scripture (wrangling).

This is the distinction. Speak to the world, but teach only the congregation. If you want to know the truth, you need to do a bit more than switch the TV on.  You can broadcast an advert without an invitation, but not a teaching. You can only broadcast a teaching by invitation (Like Paul did at the Areopagus). Publicly advertise, but privately teach. Yet do not refuse an invitation. But adjust the content of any talk given to the nature of the audience, public or private. Remember that the sermon on the mount was given on the mount, not in the public square.

[23] Certificate of Divorce

One of the most astonishing things to the writer about the bible is that it prescribes no methodology for a marriage ceremony. Gordon does wonder therefore whether we are supposed to have any such ceremony. To God, once the man has proposed and the woman has agreed, that is the end of the matter, and any man who sleeps with an engaged woman is committing adultery. God expects us to be like an English gentleman was over a hundred years ago. His word was his bond. 

One way of looking at the lack of marriage ceremony detail in the scriptures is that God rejoices in the freedom that he gives us to love each other how we want to love each other and he hates interfering in other people's loving relationships. He is a God of total freedom, and what greater freedom is there than the freedom to love, without the state or the church telling you how to do it? But as we have discussed above, God does licence procreative sex in order to protect the rights of the child. Anyhow we are all free to get married however we want, whether in a big church ceremony or skydiving out of an aeroplane. 

But regrettably people often get married for reasons other than love and for this reason and others marriages often fall apart. Now according to the strict law of God, the only grounds for divorce are adultery, non consumation, or prior fornication as we shall see. 

18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.
19 However, Joseph her husband, because he was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle, intended to divorce her secretly (Matthew 1).

So it is righteous to divorce before consummation (Joseph was not going to make an accusation about his wife). But Jesus described how Moses prescribed a certificate of divorce...

3 And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?
4 In reply he said: Did you not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female
5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh'?
6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together [this occurs when God puts his spirit into a 10 weekold foetus. This is his part in the procedure. The parents will have the child as their yoke always, but they may be two flesh since a yoke connects two cattle] let no man put apart [let no man take the child away from its parents - social services take note].
7 They said to him: Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and a divorcing her?
8 He said to them: Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning [showing that there was law in the day of Adam and actually down to Moses].
9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery (Matthew 19).

2 Pharisees now approached and, to put him to the test, began questioning him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
3 In answer he said to them: What did Moses command you.
4 They said: Moses allowed writing a certificate of dismissal and a divorcing [her].
5 But Jesus said to them: Out of regard for your hardheartedness he wrote you this commandment.
6 However, from [the] beginning of creation He made them male and female.
7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother,
8 and the 2 will be one flesh; so that they are no longer 2, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God yoked together [this occurs when God puts his spirit into a 18 week old foetus. This is his part in the procedure. The parents will have the child as their yoke always, but they may be two flesh since a yoke connects two cattle] let no man put apart [let no man take the child away from its parents - social services take note].
10 When again in the house the disciples began to question him concerning this.
11 And he said to them: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,
12 and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery (Mark 10).

The certificate of dismissal is a metonym for the certificate of divorce which involves a dismissal. There was only one certificate in the law, a certificate of divorce. The Pharisees referred to it as a certificate of dismissal.

10 To the married people I give instructions, yet not I but the Lord, that a wife should not depart from her husband;
11 but if she should actually depart, let her remain unmarried or else make up again with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife.
12 But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with
him, let him not leave her;
13 and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with her, let her not leave her husband.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to [his] wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the
brother; otherwise, your children would really be unclean, but now they are holy.
15 But if the unbelieving one proceeds to depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not in servitude under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace.
16 For, wife, how do you know but that you will save [your] husband? Or, husband, how do you know but that you will save [your] wife? [binary question] (1 Corinthians 7).

So you can divorce if the marriage becomes intolerable but you cannot then remarry unless there has been fornication. But here is the clever interpretation and the legalistic part...

1 In case a man takes a woman and does make her his possession as a wife, it must also occur that if she should find no favor in his eyes because he has found something indecent [uncovered, nakedness - so certainly prior fornication or adultery, but not pole dancing, stripogram, nude model etc. for the reason described below] on her part, he must also write out a certificate of divorce for her and put it in her hand and dismiss her from his house.
2 And she must go out of his house and go and become another man's [so she must have comitted fornication or the holy spirit is commanding adultery].
3 If the latter man [who knows that she is a fornicatrix] has come to hate her and has written out a certificate of divorce for her [he does not need to find anything else indecent because, he already knows she is a fornicatrix] and put it in her hand and dismissed her from his house, or in case the latter man who took her as his wife should die,
4 the first owner of her who dismissed her will not be allowed to take her back again to become his wife after she has been defiled; for that is something detestable before Jehovah, and you must not lead the land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance into sin (Deuteronomy 24).

So actually you can divorce a woman on fornication that she commited prior to your marriage if you like, and the woman likewise can divorce a man for that reason. It the event of a divorce for prior fornication both are free to remarry without committing adultery if they do. But if they remarry they cannot go back to the first spouse afterwards. Jesus indicated this when he used the word fornication rather than adultery in Matthew19...

9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery (Matthew 19).

Fornication would have occurred prior to the marriage, since infidelity within the marriage is adultery which is a form of fornication but Jesus did use the wider term.

If two unmarried people procreate, the woman getting pregnant, then at the 18th week, when the child becomes a human soul, they are de facto married because they have permanently become one flesh not be agreement but by action. If they choose not to honour this, they have effectively granted themselves a certificate of divorce, and they cannot remarry without committing adultery unless there has been further fornication.

The point is that if a girl keeps herself for her husband then the husband cannot divorce her other than on the ground of her adultery. That is the prize she gets for her self control prior to the marriage. But if a woman does not keep herself for her husband, then he can divorce her on the grounds of her prior fornication at any time, so her marriage is built on sand if her husband does not love her in a long term way. But of course all marriages require long term love. The same is true for a man. Marriage therefore provides more security for virgins than it does for fornicators. Or looking at it the other way, you can get out of a marriage with a fornicator more easily. 

Certificate of Dismissal = Certificate of Divorce

So we will issue/permit certificates of divorce for husbands who wish to divorce their wives and vice versa for prior fornication or for adultery.

Technically, since God regards engaged people, people who have agreed to marry, as married, then he would also regard two people who had agreed to get divorced and have a certificate of dismissal issued (in the event that one or both was/were a Lords' Witness), as being divorced, before the divorce goes through the secular courts. So the LWs will regard a certificate of divorce as being the end of the matter. The certificate is just an agreement to divorce signed by both parties with each signature witnessed. Legally this is a Deed of Divorce. However God hates trashing loving bonds and we would offer counseling as best as we can to preserve the marriage especially in cases where children are involved. But the decision is not ours.

We will also issue/permit certificates of divorce in the following circumstances where there is no prior fornication or adultery...

[1] Mutual consent

[2] One spouse wants it and the other does not and there are no unmarried children living in the family home under 20

[3] One spouse wants it and the other does not and all the children are at least 16, subject to the consent of the local congregation (which means the elders of the congregation, who are the head of the congregation) who must weigh the misery of the marriage against the rights of the teenagers and who must speak to all the children in reaching their decision. This non biblical concession is given because modern children can actually ger married themselves at 16.

In these cases the ex-spouses commit adultery if they re-marry.

All custody of children must go to the husband. The husband can then give them to the wife if he chooses and she agrees, but it is his decision.

We will consider the following as grounds for taking away the father's ownership of the children and temporarily or permanently giving them to the mother.

1. Attempted murder of his own children (permanent grounds).
2. Incest (permanent grounds).
3. The children develop a life threatening medical condition due to continued prolonged negligence of the father (temporary).
4. Abandonment (temporary). 

[24] How to treat Disfellowshipped people

Disfellowshipping is for a minimum period of 7 months as explained in section J2 above. The DFD brother or sister is thrown out of the church and during the first 7 months they are not permitted to attend any meetings of the church. If even two brothers are having a meeting to do with the church, a DFD person should not attend. However, contrary to the practice of the JWs, shunning is hateful and Satanic as discussed in J13 above.

So any brother or sister can visit a DFD person during the 7 months and discuss anything they like with them, but be careful and cautious, these people may be spiritually dangerous. Jesus exhorted us all to visit those in prison...

43 I was a stranger, but you did not receive me hospitably; naked, but you did not clothe me; sick and in prison, but you did not look after me (Matthew 25).

So actually we should keep in contact with DFD people, so that we continue to show them love. But they cannot attend any congregation meeting of any type. Non religious congregation social functions, are not out of bounds for DFD brothers and sisters, but be careful.

After the 7 months, the same is true until said person is repentant. At which time he must go to the elders, who will decide whether of not his repentance is genuine. If he says that he is repentant and there is no evidence to the contrary he is presumed repentant. He is repentant until proven otherwise. However if he has lied or slandered, his repentance will be that he should own up to and apologise for every lie and every slander, to everyone involved as far as this is still possible. 

Avoid socialising with those who hide their sins
Avoid socialising with those who divide the church

Now Paul confusingly said...

9 In my letter I wrote you to quit mixing in company with fornicators,
10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.
11 But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or a idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man (1 Corinthians 5).

This refers to people still inside the congregation whom the elders should have thrown out. The Corinthians elders had failed to throw out a man who had married one of his father's wives. So it only applies when the congregation has negligent elders. In this case we should not shun (not avoid speaking with), but we should avoid socialising (avoid eating a meal with) people who we know should really have been thrown out. This is the congregation showing its disapproval. All non disfunctional communities do this. In fact 30 years ago this is how communities in England were policed. Today the only policing they get is from policemen. We must not ignore the pink elephant. If a brother who we know to be an adulterer invites us to tea, we should say, admit it and resign first, then we will come round. What these brothers should do is own up to the elders, and if the elders will not apply the law properly then the brothers should resign anyway, because they are not fooling the angels. And God is very happy indeed when a sinner takes his punishment for this is the start of repentance and we know from the parable of the lost sheep that there is more happinness in heaven when one sinner repents that there is over 99 righteous ones who have no need of repentance.

Paul further says...

17 Now I exhort you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.
18 For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own bellies; and by smooth talk and complimentary speech they seduce the hearts of guileless ones (Romans 16).

So we should avoid those trying to draw people off after themselves. But we should love first and judge second. Only if we know that a brother is hiding a sin which should result in an accusation or an expulsion or only if we know that a brother is making his own church within the congregation should we avoid them socially. We need to be grown up about this. Obviously someone trying to set up a study group or a research group for the purpose of furthering our understandings or our ministry etc. is to be applauded. But someone who sets such a group up for the purpose of furthering himself is to be avoided. This requires exercising judgement. Judge a tree by its fruit. If a research group comes up with good new understandings or helps people to see the truth stay with it. If the group produces bitterness resentment, and attacks certain brothers, thereby inciting division, then leave it.

The thing is that Jesus is present when 2 or 3 are gathered together. So we would encourage LWs to form bible study groups. But of course this mechanism can be abused like any other mechanism. 

John advises us not to allow disfellowshipped people into our meetings and not to greet disfellowshipped people as brothers. But this does not mean that we should shun them or refuse to allow them into our houses. The confusion on this matter comes from the early Christian practice of holding congregation meetings in one's house.

7 For many deceivers have gone forth into the world [from the true congregation], persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh [persons who say Jesus was not the Christ]. This is the deceiver and the antichrist [literally: against the Christ].
8 Look out for yourselves, that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward [get sealed].
9 Everyone [who was/is a brother, i.e. who is in the church] that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ [having come in the flesh as Jesus] does not have God [he is not in the 1AC if having known about Jesus, he then rejects him]. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son [as Gods, two Gods, and has the father Abraham and the son Isaac as covenant fathers of the 1AC and the ICC].
10 If anyone [who was/is a brother] comes to you [plural you, the congregation] [to a Christian meeting being held at your house] and does not bring this teaching [of Jesus having come in the flesh as the Messiah, the Christ], never receive him into your homes [for a Christian meeting] or say a [Christian] greeting to him [do not allow him into the meeting do not treat him as a Christian brother - but he can of course come and see you in your home outside of a meeting just like any other tradesman or friend].
11 For he that says a [Christian] greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works [Because this guy is or should be disfellowshipped] (2 John).

Confession is done with regard to a known fact. So the antichrist does not accept that Jesus was the Christ. He is against the Christ, against the claim of Jesus to be the Christ. Disfellowshipped people are not allowed into meetings and one should not greet them as a brother (no holy kiss etc). But they are not banned from all of our houses and we can greet them as we would greet any other worldly person.

[25] Is Lesbianism a sin?

26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature
27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error (Romans 1).

15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin, in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death (James 1).

Paul describes lesbianism as disgraceful and contrary to nature, but he does not say that lesbians should receive any recompense for their error, whereas he does say that homosexuals should. Homosexual acts bring an instant disfellowshipping. Homosexual desires must be policed by the individual. But a Lesbian act must be a sin because it is the fruition of a disagraceful desire. However neither the law of Moses nor the New Testament sets any penalty for it. And as we know: By law [the law of Moses] is the accurate knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

So we are forced to conclude that Lesbian acts are a sin which must be policed by the individual and not by the congregation. It would be fun for men to try and police and punish Lesbians, but sorry guys, no dice!

Make no mistake however, the angels can police Lesbianism. If a woman continues in that path she will run the risk of losing the protection of the holy spirit, which keeps us all standing. Without this protection she will fall into another sin, one which is policed by the congregation.

[25.1] What homosexual activity leads to disfellowshipping?

The law of God on homoseuxality is...

22 And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.
23 And you must not give your emission to any beast to become unclean by it, and a woman should not stand before a beast to have connection with it. It is a violation of what is natural (Leviticus 18)

9 in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers,
10 fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the
healthful teaching
11 according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted (1 Timothy 1).

9 What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men (1 Corinthians 6).

What does a man lying down with a man mean? Presumably a man lying down with another man for the purposes of sexual stimulation. But we are not going to police sexual stimulation so we must draw some lines somewhere. As regards bestiality there should be no penetration and no emision of semen into a cavity of a beast. If we apply the same guidelines to homosexuality then there shold be no penetration of any orifice and no emission of semen into any orifice as a result of homosexual behaviour. So we draw the line at orifice penetration specifically the mouth or the backside. Homosexual orifice penetration means disfellowshipping for both parties.

Perhaps if you follow after the morality of the times you may be asking yourself what does God have against homsexuality? What harm can a couple of effeminate males do to anyone? Of course God has nothing against homosexuals themselves. He loves all his sons, saints and sinners alike. But he hates the sins they commit because he knows what damage they cause to human society as a whole.

So what damage does homsexuality really do?

Well as stated above, but restated here because it is so important...

Simply put every child has two fundamental human rights. The right to have unconditional love throughout its entire childhood from a male parent and the right to have unconditional love throughout its entire childhood from a female parent. These two loving templates are both necessary for a morally sustainable society. If one template is missing then the love of that child for half of the human race is fractured. And love is moral sustainability. That is the real danger of homosexuality and of absentee fathers of course. Although homsexuality has a multiplication factor within it which absentee fathers do not have.

[26] Births, Deaths, Marriages, Funerals

59 Then he said to another: Be my follower. The man said: Permit me first to leave and bury my father.
60 But he said to him: Let the dead bury their dead, but you go away and declare abroad the kingdom of God.
61 And still another said: I will follow you, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those in my household.
62 Jesus said to him: No man that has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well fitted for the kingdom of God (Luke 9).

It would be disrespectful to one's family to just up and leave and follow Jesus around without saying goodbye. It would be disrespectful to one's father to refuse to turn up at his burial. But there is a larger issue here for these two disciples. The one wishing to return to his family was in danger of falling between two stools. He might get caught up in household matters, and not return to Jesus, The one wishing to bury his dead father, might get caught up in estate issues and prefer the inheritance from his physical father to that from his spiritual father. So the advice from Jesus was to do with the priorities of each individual. Jesus was not advocating blanking one's relatives when one becomes a Christian.

Jesus himself went to a marriage and turned the water into wine. How could he actually take his disciples to a party of one of his friends whilst forbidding them from visiting their own relatives? Plainly he did not do this. So yes LWs can attend funerals and marriages etc. But as a church we will not hold them. The relatives should arrange the marriage or the funeral. We can come as individuals and get involved in that way. But the LWs as a church do not arrange such physical events. Any LW who has the legal right to marry people can of course do so, but that ceremony however performed has nothing to do with the church.

However we can go and bless a marriage. A doctor is called when you are sick. So if a marriage was in trouble then we would also go and bless both parties if asked. Indeed whenever a brother is sick spiritually or physically it is appropriate for his spiritual overseers and brothers to turn up and pray for him and help him as they can...

14 Is there anyone sick among you? Let him call the older men of the congregation to [him], and let them pray over him, greasing [him] with oil in the name of Jehovah.
15 And the prayer of faith will make the indisposed [physically] one well, and Jehovah will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, it will be forgiven him.
16 Therefore openly confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may get healed. A righteous man's supplication, when it is at work, has much force (James 5).
 

[27] How do I get out of the LWs?

To join the church one just needs to accept the Minimum Belief Set and ask to be baptised. Baptism is a free gift from God and religion should always be a free choice for his children. Since we baptize anyone who wishes it without delay, we likewise accept resignations from the church but with a 7 day reconsideration period, for this too is a part of free choice in religion. If you leave, you can come back whenever you wish. 

However if you are born again, spirit sanctified, then leaving the church is an attempted suicide on your angelic body. You will lose that body if you fail to return to the church. Killing your angelic vehicle is no different from killing your human vehicle. This church gives a warning for attempted suicide so we will also give a warning to anyone who attempts angelic suicide. If you attempt physical suicide 3 times we do not disfellowship you out of compassion, because such a thing might be the last straw. But we will not show such compassion in the case of saints who leave the church 3 times. The third time you wish to leave we will disfellowship you, since you have denied the Christ and your sanctification 3 times. You can return after 7 months or at the next Jubilee however.  

Now the sharper reader may have realised that rather than being disfellowshipped for murder or adultery, he could resign, then do the act then rejoin with a warning in the case that he was a saint and with no penalty from the church in the case that he was unsanctified. This would be a really dumb move. You can fool the church, but you cannot fool the holy spirit which effectively has perfect holographic video recordings of absolutely everything ever done on this planet. 

If you try and play false to the holy spirit you may end up in the position of Ananias and Saphira...

1 However, a certain man, Ananias by name, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession
2 and secretly held back some of the price, his wife also knowing about it, and he brought just a part and deposited it at the feet of the apostles.
3 But Peter said: Ananias, why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field?
4 As long as it remained with you did it not remain yours, and after it was sold did it not continue in your control? Why was it
that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart? You have played false, not to men, but to God.
5 On hearing these words Ananias fell down and expired. And great fear came over all those hearing of it (Acts 5).

Technically, you shoud confess your sin when you rejoin, otherwise you have obtained a church water baptism by deception and the result might be that you lose your faith baptism which means you will not be a son of Abraham by covenant and therefore it will only be a matter of time before you cease to be a son of Isaac by covenant, since one cannot be a son of Isaac without being a son of Abraham. 

Suppose you wish to commit adultery with your neghbour's wife. You could leave the church, sleep with her and then rekoin the church. True you would regain your water baptism. But, you would alos have defiled your conscience and therefore lost your faith baptism. And you cannot keep a water baptism indefinitely without a faith baptism. So you would be defiling your legs in order to clean your hands which is not likely to work.

Whereas if you did not play games with the holy spirit and instead slept with your neighbour's wife and admitted it and were disfellowshipped (and eventually stopped sleeping with her), then your conscience is clear once the sin has stopped and has been admitted, and repentance can follow and you will be in the kingdon. Those who take the penalty for the law of the church, do save their souls.

24 For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake is the one that will save it (Luke 9).

5 You hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh [the end of his water baptism, the loss of his methuselaic body], in order that the spirit may be saved [from Gehenna] in the day of the Lord [by his being able to be repentant post conviction - and therefore have a chance to at least get his faith baptism back] (1 Corinthains 5)

4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 4).

In order to try and prevent any saint from committing spiritual suicide, we will always give them 7 days to reconsider after we have accepted their resignation.

Back to Index