Evacuated

On 4/1/2017 at 10:05 PM, ARchiv@L said:

ARE YOU SURE??

Phew!!!

Emotions understandably are running high over the issues faced by our dear brothers in Russia. Our sense of justice is outraged by the treatment meted out to our brothers, especially when we see videos like above. Let's not forget that the roaring of the lion (1Pet.5:8) is aimed to frighten and confuse the sheep. The last thing we want is to be bickering with each other over how to best support our brothers at this time. Recognise that oppression can drive even the wise one into madness (Ecc.7:7).

We can be sure that the Head of the congregation, Jesus, is as well aware of what is happening to our brothers now as he was in the 1st Century in connection with the congregation in Smyrna (Rev.2:8-11).

We have been provided with our current publicity strategy by the Governing Body, and are yet to see the impact of this. Additional action has been taken under theocratic direction as reported on https://jw-russia.org/news on 31/3/2017. The Society has posted videos and news reports on oppressive action both recently and in the past on jw.org, even naming brothers where appropiate.

As for sympathisers (either Witnesses or non-witnesses) posting videos and information under their own authorisation, this is a matter for them and their own consciences. It would hardly be appropriate for we, who demand freedom of expression for ourselves especially in religious matters, to restrict that right for others. However, with every excercise of freedom there is a price to be paid and a consideration on how our actions effect others.

In fairness to @Lussier Denis, the campaign instructions do contain the request: "Do not mention the names of individuals in Russia who are Jehovah’s Witnesses.". We need to apply the words of Proverbs 20:1 here: "by skillful direction wage your war", and for Jehovah's Witnesses, that skillful direction will come from the Head of the Congregation, Jesus Christ, and through the instructions given by the Governing Body and it is through following these that victory will come. It will not come through individually initiated skirmishing, independent of that "skilfull direction" and the inevitable disunity such action brings.

On 3/22/2017 at 2:11 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Oh the Org has its own effective way of punishing open dissenters

How do you apply Titus 3:10? 

"A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society;"

Bible in Basic English

"Warn anyone who tries to get believers to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Warn him more than once. After that, have nothing to do with him."

New International Readers Version

4 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't think I could stomach showing concern for Russia's leaders. We don't have to "brown nose" to put our point across.

The horrible expression "brown nose" is reserved for those who are described as "obsequious". Equally horrible, that word is defined in part as servile, ingratiating, unctuous, sycophantic, fawning. I agree that we do not have to demonstrate that level of behaviour in dealing with political leaders, Russian or otherwise.

But we are advised by the apostles (who had dealings with men alongside whom Russian politicians wilt) to show respect for those who currently excercise power. With the example of Saul, later Paul, we can appreciate the Bible's counsel to avoid judging others.

4 hours ago, David Normand said:

I have been pondering for several days about the efficacy of bringing up ISIS or other things

Not a suitable subject for a letter to the Russian authorities regarding our brothers, BUT...................

It puts me in mind of what occurred in Nazi Germany. I believe officers in prison camps would allow Jehovah's Witness prisoners to wet shave them....because they knew they could trust the brothers not to harm them, such was the brothers respect for Jehovah's requirements at that time.  Well, can you imagine any "Guatanamo Bay" type military officer  allowing an ISIS militant to shave them with a cut-throat razor today without at least a qualm of misgiving????     Who really are the extremists?

1 hour ago, Anna said:

OK. Thanks

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/crux002.pdf

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

IF traditionally the Romans used a cross, then would Jehovah make them use a stake?

Depends. Maybe it was important to Jehovah. Anyway, at the moment you are right in saying 

5 minutes ago, Anna said:

we really don't know for sure

but we will know for sure in the resurrection won't we?

9 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I find that remark distasteful, as well as not even remotely analogous.

Thanks for sharing your feelings and your viewpoint. 

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

the Org invites backlash

You mean like provocatively dressed women invite assault?

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Odd that they will still allow a business bank account but with only enough money in it to pay fines and taxes

Who would receive that money?

Wish I could speak Spanish as I cannot really fathom the Google translate (?) version. I am sure we will get the full, lurid details and more soon if there is any truth in the matter.

Rev. 12:17

I actually felt a bit sorry for Mr Stewart this time round. Seems like he's blunting his teeth a bit on this bone!

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For what it's worth, my take on this is that there is such a wide range of possibility

There is no precise way yet to conclusively determine what was actually in Paul's mind in his use of Deut.21:22-23 relating to instrument used in Jesus murder. The analysis in the posting is interesting, and I particularly like the connection with the account regarding Haman's experience in the book of Esther.

If anything, the information presented persuades me more to the single stake view, particularly when I consider the active interest Jehovah must have taken in all the events surrounding the sacrificial death of His son Jesus. The idea (if true) that the word for stake had slipped in meaning due to custom and practice of the time, and that this would render a single pole method of execution as unusual (although not impossible), rather piques my interest. If anything, it would certainly have drawn even more attention to the event at the time, even if the detail is not specifically recorded in any extant source. I am also inclined to think that an ancient definition of the word would be more appropriate in view of Paul's reference to Deuteronomy.

However, we just cannot be sure, and for that reason I am happy to accept for now the current view we as Jehovahs Witnesses hold "the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty."  https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/

Of course, the matter will be clarified in the future, but it is obviously more important for us now to focus on the meaning, rather than the implement, of Jesus' death.  

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Definition is not the problem

It does appear as a problem to me in that "two" is not adequate as a definition. It is not clear what form their evidence takes, whether direct or circumstantial. Citing Deut.22:22-27 is relevant but inconclusive as there is no description of its application in fact that I know of.

7 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Angus Stewart's question

Seems to have been addressed in the response letter you linked at page 8. 2:8c "if the elders and branch office determine that a child is in danger, the elders are directed to call law enforcement authorities, even if such reporting is not mandated by law."

The question seems to be prompted by Mr Stewart's exasperation in the midst of a rather muddy discussion looking at your linked reference.

7 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But society has to move together in this

Excuse me feeling a tad dubious about "society's" commitment here in the light of the unfolding extent of this ever burgeoning problem.

However, I did notice the ARC invitation to Watchtower Australia to participate and contribute to improving matters. 

There are obviously well motivated individuals indicating their genuine concern in the area of child protection, and a number of specialists providing invaluable insights into understanding and handling the problem. However, as noted elsewhere in the postings, the continued mud-slinging and jibe trading that seems to accompany discussions on this subject, (not limited to this forum), are an impediment to any joint approach in dealing wih this criminal activity.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

According to the "two witness rule", the elders COULD NOT EVEN REPORT ME TO THE POLICE for investigation.

Do you need two witnesses to report a missing person in your neck of the woods (or swamp)?

Better example please!

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Why would it matter that the tool of execution might have also been.....etc

Actually, with respect it probably did matter in this case. Additionally, Jehovah can ensure that events take place His way, regardless of tradition, normal practice, or any other influence one cares to imagine.

If someone could sensibly explain what Paul had in mind when he wrote at Gal. 3:13:

"Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake" "

it might be interesting.

Only, make it real, please. I don't want to spend the rest of my life crossing and uncrossing Taus!
 

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

According to the "two witness rule", the elders COULD NOT EVEN REPORT ME TO THE POLICE for investigation

You will have to think of a better example because reporting Bro. Jack as a missing person would open the investigation regardless of any ambiguity over "who dunnit?"

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

two witnesses

Definition of witness is the problem - procedural inadequacy

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

handle child abuse internally

Definite error of judgement this - evidence of naivety.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

report to or at least consult with outside agencies (this is slowly changing, but only due to outside pressure).

Pressure definitely exists, but probably sensible, clear, consistent legislation and enforcement would be a better instrument for change. And wouldn't it be helpful if outside "consultants" could be relied upon to have children's interests at heart? (I'll cite UK examples in view of the impending investigations).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39234390

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Really, it is irrelevant whether it was a cross or something else

Actually, it is not known on the basis of current evidence. So it is really a hiding to nothing or, more graphically, like flogging a dead horse to try and prove definitively what the instrument was on the basis of current evidence. Heroic attempts however, and ingenious argument all round!!

2 hours ago, INTREPID TRAVELLER said:

How about applying the Law of Reason and the Law of Love ..........?

You're included in the confusion it appears............

6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends

I have indicated a like for your post because I appreciate your research, not because I like the subject matter.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Abusers are often great performers and hide what they are - JW or otherwise.

I would say always rather than often. This is how they progress to the abusive action without detection. I am hard pushed to think of a reason why I should not consider these perpertrators to be the most devious, dangerous, and pathetically evil criminals on the planet.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

some institutions' culture and beliefs serve to increase the likelihood of abuse occurring - JWs included.

This is not a fair assessment. This is not about culture and belief with JWs. This is about procedural inadequacy due to naivety. You should know better @Ann O'Maly.

The basic problem here is a confusion on all sides about how to explain/understand the difference between a person's action when they formally disassociate or renounce their dedication to Jehovah as opposed to a decision to stop attending Christian meetings and participation in field service.

7 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

Although viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse

By who?

49 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

" There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." " — Daniel Webster

Splendid quote