Shiwiii

1 minute ago, bruceq said:

I am talking about the BIBLE here which IS John's belief. Sorry if you thought otherwise. Where is your Trinity, show me a Scripture from the BIBLE to prove it PLEASE I am waiting patiently.

John's recordings were that of what the Jews believed. It is not John who is proclaiming the statement, but rather recording it. I'm afraid that your determination to "prove" the word trinity isn't in the Bible just will not work. Everyone knows the word "trinity" does not exist within the manuscripts of the Bible. If that is your "win", then I guess you win. 

1 minute ago, bruceq said:

Jesus can be equal just like other angels have been throughout history. But where is the Trinity, you keep avoiding that point I see.Angels have been called "God Almighty", "The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob" and even by the name "Jehovah" but they were still just angels speaking for God.

NOWHERE in the Bible is ANY angel equal to GOD! 

We can discuss each and every instance where you think so, but you first have to demonstrate your ability to have an intellectually honest conversation.

1 minute ago, bruceq said:

John was a Jew and Jews do not believe in a Trinity so using John to try and prove your point is pointless to say the least. That is like me trying to use your words to show that you believe something that you know you do not believe in. .

We are not talking about John's beliefs here, nor mine nor yours. The statement is what the JEWS thought. John only recorded it. I'm beginning to think you don't even care to discuss, but only to dodge and avoid the Biblical facts presented to you. 

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Do you mean something like 2Pet 2:4?

please elaborate, I'm not seeing where angels being cast into hell and reserved for judgement (by Jesus) has anything to do with the statement I made. 

1 minute ago, bruceq said:

Of course I believe in the divinity of Jesus but no the Trinity of him.

So do you believe Jesus equal with the Father? That was the understanding by the Jews of Jesus claim and why John wrote what he did. 

1 minute ago, bruceq said:

John never mentioned a "Trinity" please show me what Translation you are using that says so. John knew God was not a Trinity so he would not be teaching about a false God. The Bible should interpret itself not interpreted by manmade creeds written after the Bible.

Do you see somewhere where I said the word "trinity" is in the Bible? No, it is a lame excuse to avoid what is actually said. Just answer the question/statement I made. I'll post it again for you:

But what DID John write? He wrote that the Jews understood that Jesus claim was that God was His father, and in the minds of the Jews it made Jesus claim a claim of divinity.

1 minute ago, bruceq said:

Good. He speaks for God not himself. For more info on other what other beliefs are in the Bible instead of made up hundreds of years later try JW.ORG.

 

Give it up with the jw.borg thing man, if you don't know or can't explain it yourself, then don't even bother. 

Again, does a King announce himself? No

Who is the King? Jesus

Would Jesus announce Himself? No, no need to as God's trumpet and the voice of an archangel will do it for Him. 

2 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Perfect example of what we are talking about. BTW John who wrote that passage you quote was a JEW and JEWS do not believe in a Trinity so you cannot find it there. Sorry

But what DID John write? He wrote that the Jews understood that Jesus claim was that God was His father, and in the minds of the Jews it made Jesus claim a claim of divinity. no way around that one Bruceq. 

8 minutes ago, bruceq said:

LOL If Jesus was God why use an angels voice at all? Certainly he would use his OWN voice instead of a created being. Howdy Doody indeed. 

So you also believe that Jesus is a trumpet? I could see that, i mean from your way of thinking.

Does a King announce himself?

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The whole debate centered on the divinity of Christ, his ontological relationship with and his derivation from the Father.

And isn't this the whole reason WHY the Jews were going to stone Jesus?(John 10:31-39) The claims Jesus made about Himself, through the eyes of the Jews, made Himself equal to the God of the Jews. 

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If they read 'beating around the bush' in an article, they understand the meaning. It they read it in the Bible, they look for the bush.

If they read of persons shedding 'crocodile tears' in an article, the understand the meaning. If they read it in the Bible, it is proof to them that the persons were really crocodiles.

Kinda like "coming with the voice of an archangel" and the WT looks for an archangel? 

23 minutes ago, bruceq said:

The answer is in the previous post.  Here it is again in case you missed it :"If it is right to defend your country then why did Jesus tell Peter not to defend him but to "Return your sword to its place, those who live by the sword will die by the sword"? Mt 26:52 BTW Your country belongs to Satan just as every other country does. AGAIN see the previous post. 

I still do not see the answer as to Who's side was the Trinity God on?  Still waiting.

was your question not addressed to Cos?  I believe it was when you quoted. IF you'd like to ask me that question by all means do, but we must have a dialog and not a monologue. You respond and in turn I respond to a question asked and not ignoring a question to ask one of your own. 

21 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Since you don't like JW.ORG for some reason  Try these books:

my statement still stands. You just refuse to answer in your own words and opinion. 

classic answer to any question by one who cannot develop a response on their own; point to someone/something else so that no responsibility needs to be taken by the one pointing.

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

For answers to any questions please see JW.ORG.

classic answer to any question by one who cannot develop a response on their own; point to someone/something else so that no responsibility needs to be taken by the one pointing. 

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Ask yourself does it show love to slaughter your brother from another religion or even your own religion on the battlefield?

Did God approve of war? Throughout the OT there is plenty of war, wars instructed by God Himself. Why would Jesus command the disciples to gain a sword? To look cool? Defense? 

Dying for the lack of picking up arms does not make one a martyr. 

2 hours ago, bruceq said:

I have seen many Trinitarians during war fighting against other Trinitarians Catholics killing Catholics, Protestants killing Protestants during the World Wars

Why did Jesus command the disciples to get a sword In Luke 22?

Was this the command for abstinence of war or fighting? Is there not a need for protection, even as a nation?  

I knew this would be the standard reply about the trinity and how nations fought against each other who supposedly believed the same thing, but in reality our flesh makes war with our spirit daily and this is the manifestation of that in mankind. This notion of refraining from protecting your fellow nationalists is cowardice. If one finds themselves in a country in which they do not agree with the direction of that nation is headed, he should leave for a nation that suits them or create his own. To take the benefits of a nation but refuse to align with them in times of need(as determined by said nation)  is parasitic. 

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

I hasten to be so bold as to say you know nothing about the situation of the victims, only perhaps the two that were in the ARC hearing, and one of them I remember thinking was very odd, as the victim was already 16 when her abuse started. I don't want to minimize the criminal and disgusting behavior of the perpetrator, but the victim was hardly a child. Her whole testimony sounded odd.

That does not diminish the fact that the policy put in place by the wt failed 1004 others in protecting them as children and in actuality protected the perpetrator. Odd or not, I hardly think a child that was abused is such a fashion would be "normal" after the abuse.

12 minutes ago, Anna said:

what I said was that no KNOWN perpetrator would be allowed to continue his vile acts.

In the ARC it was admitted that the perpetrator WAS KNOWN and was still allowed to continue. I can dig up the recording with the admittance if you like.   

13 minutes ago, Anna said:

I get a little tired of going over and over the same thing again and again with people whose main interest is to criticize how this or that was handled when they themselves were not even there, and  when all they hear is testimonies from ex-witnesses who undoubtedly have a hidden agenda.

Did you watch the whole thing? Both trials? For the duration of the case? I did.

Its very easy to dismiss testimony when it does not suit you and then to label them as "apostate" or having some hidden agenda.

40 minutes ago, Anna said:

There are many victims who have remained JW. Maybe those are the ones who would give us a more truthful and unbiased testimony as to how these things were handled.

So you only take the testimony of current jw's as valid? Not bias are we? See, this is why decisions are left to the Judge in the court case, Justice Peter McClellan specifically. They are trained and vowed to uphold neutrality for the sake of the public and base their decision upon facts and not personal bias. 

48 minutes ago, Anna said:

But the Witnesses are not the only ones

But this what we are talking about isn't it? Besides, "others are bad too", doesn't make it ok. 

7 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Sorry   I don't care to argue with apostates who use the same type of questioning that Satan used. The "Ministry of Justice is now being influenced by Dvorkin and other anti-cultist apostates and the trial clearly showed now for the world to see that they, all anti-cultist apostates, are all liars and have baseless claims. 

Ok bruce, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la,la,la,la I can't hear you" doesn't make facts go away. 

2 hours ago, bruceq said:

Shiwii said: "So what you are saying is that you also do not acknowledge Scientology as a religion as the Russians do. Some do some don't, ok. Then you are correct. If Scientology is not considered a religion, then it just doesn't count. Gotcha. It's all "apostate lies". 

   I don't care to argue with apostates who use the same type of questioning that Satan used. The "Ministry of Justice is now being influenced by Dvorkin and other anti-cultist apostates and the trial clearly showed now for the world to see that they, all anti-cultist apostates, are all liars and have baseless claims. Soon all of the World Empire of False Religion will be destroyed. That should bother you since you are a part of it.

Lol,  I think it has more to do with your lack of ability to reason than anything else. Once you figured out that your statement was false, and was shown false; not even by me mind you, you tuck tail and run instead of accepting your mistake. 

Scientology is on the list!

 

On 4/22/2017 at 6:20 AM, ARchiv@L said:

Perhaps they did not add anything because there are reasons. ..... :
1. The whole story is something “negative”, I mean not something so positive to write about. and 
2. the people (who did something bad) ARE NOT witnesses any longer …
3. why should they write something about those (elders,etc) who DID NOT SHOW ANY APPRECIATION for the other members of their own meetings ?? !!!!

Doesn't this tell the story? Don't print negative stuff, we don't want people to see that this is like any other group who has problems. Easy way to dismiss a problem is to say they D/A'd or we kicked them out by their actions.........that IS IF you have a second witness. Right on point #3, why point out the failings of the elders who were following the direction from above, both written and oral! 

On 4/21/2017 at 4:49 PM, bruceq said:

 only "one" religion has been banned in Russia.out of over 2,000 religions there according to the U.N. and other sources JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

 "The Supreme Court’s decision was the largest ban on the activities of a religious movement since the disintegration of the Soviet Union" TASS NEWS April 21, 2017 http://tass.com/politics/942578

 

Now why would it bother critics and opposers and apostates that we are the ONLY ONE???

So what you are saying is that you also do not acknowledge Scientology as a religion as the Russians do. Some do some don't, ok. Then you are correct. If Scientology is not considered a religion, then it just doesn't count. Gotcha. It's all "apostate lies". 

On 4/21/2017 at 6:26 PM, Anna said:

I guess your best bet would be to write to headquarters and ask THEM why they don't put government investigations such as the one conducted by the ARC on the website. My guess is because the Russia ban is not an investigation as such. Now had the Australian Government said it was going to ban the Witnesses, because of the ARC findings, then it is much more likely this would be in the news portion of jw.org.

I agree with you, then it would be. I have no interest in asking for a corporate answer. 

On 4/21/2017 at 6:26 PM, Anna said:

Exposure happens every time a sexual child molester/pedophile is found to be guilty of his crime and without a doubt. In other words; what they have done comes to the fore, and is undeniable. Then their conduct has been exposed.

try explaining that to the 1006 victims and their families in Au. 

On 4/21/2017 at 6:26 PM, Anna said:

a known perpetrator was protected so that he could go on abusing other children.

You probably will not find a direct quote that they said they would allow a known pedo to continue, nah.....I doubt it. But when a known pedo was found out by confession of a child (which SHOULD stand on its own as testimony) and because there was no other witness and the two witness "rule" is in affect, then you can clearly see the "truth" about the handling. I encourage you to read or watch the transcript from the initial inquiry. 

On 4/22/2017 at 6:20 AM, ARchiv@L said:

I also have a question for you, before I add my last comment about Australia subject. Thanks.

Does the Australian government ask for money, as a payment / compensation (for all that “damage”) , and how much is that money?  Thanks.
 

I do not know, honestly. I think they try and institute something towards correcting the problem. Which is to be paid by each org that was/is involved in the inquiry.

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

Isn't that the same as a big announcement? In any case, the exposure of wrong doings to children happens every time it is found out isn't it?

I think you are missing the point. If the org is involved in a major investigation, shouldn't the average person (jw or not) be informed? The instance of putting the Russian ban on the jw news portion of jworg but not other government investigations is dishonest. Either cover all equally or none. and NO if 1006 cases of child molestation and abuse have gone unannounced or exposed in Australia in the past 10 years, then I would have to disagree with your statement that exposure happens every time. 

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

The Russia situation is an entirely different thing and in all fairness cannot be compared to the above situation.

I only quoted this portion of the response because I agree with you on the rest, to an extent. I wasn't saying that these two instances are equal in disgust, but rather should be treated equally in exposure on the "news" portion of the jworg website. 

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

I would hope that a known perpetrator would not be protected under any circumstances, if by protected you mean being allowed to carry on abusing children.

But this IS the case, as proven by the ARC and admitted to by the representatives of wt au.  

What other groups claim to be the way of salvation? There are many are there not? Each and every one of them should be willing to submit to scrutiny and criticism. 

For instance, Ford, Chevy and GM all claim that their product is the best. If consumers are told to ignore what the other company says about their product, and refuses to see any perspective other than their own, then that is ignorant and narrow-minded. It will only be a matter of time before the consumers find out the truth and act based upon the new found evidence. It will only be the staunch Ford/Chevy/GM guy/girl who refuses to even take into consideration of what the opposing car companies or independent studies show about those vehicles. 

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

I thought @bruceq explained it quite well. Child abuse is nothing new. Not only that, Jehovah's Witnesses have been made aware of the problem since the early 80's. I remember the Awake article very well. There is enough information on the website about it:

https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=child+abuse

Also, I believe, most recently there will be a special handbook of some sort made available to every publisher.

But I suppose what you really would like to see is a big announcement made that; "there are some among Jehovah's Witnesses, or some who are associated with Jehovah's witnesses, who are pedophiles" instead of advice on how to protect children.

Actually no, I'm not looking for some sort of big announcement. I'd be more interested in the exposure of such wrong doings to children in the same manner as the wrong doings by Russia. Are both instances not affecting the org as a whole? The investigation by the ARC was on the practices and policies of the org, not on an individual case by case basis, much like the investigation by Russia. If a government is investigating the org as a whole, shouldn't everyone be aware of it? I think the difference is that with Russia it doesn't negatively reflect on the org,  where as the investigation from the Australian government does. Keep away the stuff that makes the org look like a part of normal society (with flaws just like any other group) and instead only cover issues that make the org look like its being picked on. It increases the persecution complex of the group as a whole. 

I forgot to ask, is it your opinion that the Russian ban and label as "extremists" greater in importance that of a child being molested and the perpetrator being protected just because it is commonly accepted that it happens in most major groups? 

10 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Jehovah's Witnesses were banned yesterday. As to why the U.N. and other sources do not recognize Scientology as an organized religion is unknown to me.

fair enough, but it hardly makes a difference who labels which group as a religion or not. No one should be banned from worshiping in the manner in which they see fit. 

I just thought it odd that sexually abused children didn't get the same coverage as this, or even a mention on the official website.  

4 minutes ago, bruceq said:

 but only "one" religion has been banned in Russia.out of over 2,000 religions there according to the U.N. and other sources.

You're speaking of Scientology right? They were banned in Nov 2015. 

I do understand your point. However I think that the actual abuse of children is far more significant. I agree with your statement that child abuse is not new among society in general, but innocent children being molested needs more representation than people not being allowed to worship in public as they see fit.