Shiwiii

12 hours ago, Arauna said:

When I see ' white'  or black people with these hair styles (dreadlocks) I associate them with the Rasta movement...... and smoking pot.

This right here is what I am talking about.

Arauna,

I'm sure you won't like this, but please don't take it and read into what I am saying. This subject between you and I, has nothing to do with religion or beliefs, but rather our human nature and ability to accept those who are different from us. A hair style is nothing but hair, it does not speak to character, it does not speak of beliefs........its just hair. Now I can understand your position and experience, however it doesn't make it absolute in every circumstance.  

When a person singles out others who have a different look and labels them in a derogatory way based only on looks, it is no different than straight racism based on the color of their skin.  Anyone can spin it this way and that, but those are the facts. 

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

Obviously you do not know much about the Rastafarian movement.   They smoke pot and wear dreadlocks. 

It has nothing to do with race but all about this "brand of religion" worn as a visible symbol. 

 

wow, so you do align with the view that Jack Ryan was describing.

Singling out someone and making assumptions based on looks.

Nice example of stereotyping! 

Interesting that not a single jw here has responded (given me a good witness) as to why my view is incorrect since it contradicts what the wt says. 

Well, this isn't the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last, but it does speak volumes. 

On 10/4/2019 at 5:15 PM, John Houston said:

 We know those 'judged' at Armageddon will not return from the dead ever. That is why we do our best NOW, before that day! Those who are returned from the dead, during those 1000 yrs., will be taught as the survivors and together they will be able to stand before the released evil one at the end of the 1000 yrs.

I disagree with those resurrected during the 100 years. See my explanation below.

On 10/4/2019 at 6:15 PM, Sean Migos said:

1. Do you believe those that follow Christ are saved? 

2. Do you believe those that have died are now in heaven?

3. How about those that "refuse" to accept God as the only divine deity that is supposed to be worshipped?

4. What does the 1,000 years of purification have to do with judgment?

1. yes

2. depends on how you view Pauls statement in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. I do believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. 

3. See below

4. See below

On 10/5/2019 at 12:19 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Where in a Bible was clearly said that people died in Armageddon have no hope for resurrection?  

It doesn't,  See below for my understanding. 

all references to a particular verse pertain to Revelation 20, unless otherwise noted. 

All of Revelation chapter 20 explains this I feel. Starting at verse 1, we are told of how Satan would be bound for the 1000 years. Then we see how those who have been give n the authority to judge, will do so.

Whom are these going to judge? Verses 4-6 tell us that they are those who have done well and lived as God has required, No image of the beast, no mark, their testimony about Jesus. We are told these are blessed and holy. 1 Corinthians 15 23-26 explains the order in which resurrection takes place and to whom, those who belong to Christ. This chapter in 1 Cor tells us more. It tells us that not all who belong to Christ will die first, nope some will be changed without ever tasting human death, 1 Cor verse 51. No mention of the unjust yet. 

Rev 20 verse 7 states "When the 1000 years are over,..." so this takes place after the 1000 years.  This is after Kingdom rule started and those who were still alive AFTER Armageddon. This is proven by  Rev Chapter 19 where it is stated that the beast was captured and false prophet were thrown into the lake of burning sulfur. The signs that these two performed prior were what deluded many into taking the mark of the beast and worshiping the beast.  So at this point it is chronological, ch 19 then ch 20.  So during Armageddon, some will survive, but not all.  Those who do survive are under rule for the 1000 years. There is no mention of ANY resurrection during the 1000 years, only after.  

Judgement of the dead comes after the 1000 year reign and after the battle of Gog and Magog. This is not the judgement of the living, but those who died anytime prior to this moment. Verse 12 tells us that all of the dead are standing before the throne awaiting judgement and they were judged based upon what they had done while living.  Ch 20 verse 15,  If their names were not written in the Book of Life........gone, lake of fire gone, second death.  

Once this judgement is over, the new heaven and new earth come into play and ch 21 verses 6-8 restate whom will be thrown in the lake of burning sulfur, the second death. 

I'm sure not all of you will agree with me, its ok. However, this is what I believe based on God's word. 

So if  jw's believe that there is a second chance/resurrection to try again during the 1000 years or after, I completely disagree. I just cannot see where in scripture that can be supported. If someone can show me, that would be great, but I just don't see it.  

NO,no,no......

This topic  is not about what scripture says, AND the topic is not about "What is the point of surviving the judgement day if you can achieve the same thing after the 1000 years?"

This topic is about the contradicting statements by the wt in their same magazines! I did not write this title, my title was"

Which is it?" in other words......what does the wt expect you to believe when they speak out of both sides of their mouth/mag. 

So as I am sure there are plenty of you folks here that adhere and read the wt and "awake".  Have any of you who have read these considered the wt Oct study edition this year? In particular this little quote:

       "KEEP TRYING TO MAKE DISCIPLES
14. According to Jesus’ instructions recorded at Matthew 28:19, 20, what do we try our best to do, and why?

14 Read Matthew 28:19, 20. As we conduct Bible studies, we have to try our best to “make disciples . . . , teaching them to observe all the things [Jesus has] commanded.” We need to help people understand how important it is for them to take their stand for Jehovah  and his Kingdom. This means trying to motivate people to make the truth their own by applying what they learn, dedicating their life to Jehovah, and getting baptized. Only then will they survive Jehovah’s day.—1 Pet. 3:21."

So one must be baptized as a jw in order to survive Jehovahs day (judgement day).  That is basically what is being said. 

What about this statement by the wt? 

"Millions of others will have the opportunity of gaining everlasting life when they are resurrected. Jesus performed a resurrection when he visited the city of Nain. The only son of a widow had died, and Jesus, “moved with pity,” raised him to life  again. (Luke 7:11-15) Also, the apostle Paul said: “I have hope toward God . . . that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” 

So which is it? What is the point of surviving the judgement day if you can achieve the same thing after the 1000 years? 

On 9/15/2019 at 7:27 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Funny insane ... not funny ha-ha.

The two references diametrically contradict each other.

and yet you still think this is the only game in town?  C'mon JTR, you already see the reality of it all.

34 minutes ago, Indiana said:

You have the right to assume whatever you want to assume, those are YOUR assumptions.

context of your statement tells the story, not your denial. 

2 minutes ago, Indiana said:

@Shiwiii read the bible and you'll learn how Jesus treated others

Oh yes, Indiana, I have and what i found was that Jesus ate with sinners and had compassion for ALL people. He even forgave the criminal who was on the cross next to Him, a criminal! Self professed criminal at that.  Did Jesus avoid the adulteress? Nope. Hmmm, maybe we can look at what He said as well.....Matthew 7:1-2....or perhaps we can take a look at what Jesus did for another sinner at John 5:14? 

So why don't you tell me,  Are the actions of shunning ANYONE on par with how Jesus treated others? 

11 minutes ago, Indiana said:

 I sat next to a disfellowshipped one who spent all the meeting recording videos and taking photos to share over Whatsapp, I didn't leave the hall for him being there

but this was your implication when you said "On another note tonight I learned a lesson: before attending a wedding ask if they invited a disfellowshipped 🤭" With a smiley face at that. 

12 minutes ago, Indiana said:

I only gave an advice to you and everyone:  if you know you won't feel comfortable attending an event where someone you don't want to see probably will be there, ask someone first. For instance if your husband/wife betrayed you or dumped for another person and there are chances that they will be in the same event you want to go, ask first someone and avoid the pain to you and others who don't want to see you either.  

hogwash! EVERYONE attending the wedding would know that the grooms mother would be there, its his wedding. 

12 hours ago, Indiana said:

On another note tonight I learned a lesson: before attending a wedding ask if they invited a disfellowshipped

Is this how Jesus treated others? 

Does this statement mean anything to any of you/us? 

I'd like to hear your thoughts. I ran across it today and I wanted the opinion of this group. 

It reminds me of the scene in full metal jacket where private Joker refuses to reverse himself because he knows he will be beaten harder if he does. Have any of you made a mistake, or lied, and kept up with it even after you realized you were wrong? 

10 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Thanks for the personal threat. It will be submitted to the proper authorities just like the one John made.

Bahahahahahaa 

See, I said you were funny. 

I'll help you out since common sense and logic escape you:

    One day you will come to realize the error in front of you that you cannot see at this time in your life, it will hurt your pride/ego/mind when you do realize it, but you will one day realize it. 

Why do you think everything is a personal attack against you? Is it because you are the one normally making such attacks and expect the same in return? Or is it because the wt told you that anyone who is not a jw will attack you? 

I forgot to add.....eeek, I'm scared. 

52 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The one that needs education about the laws of the land are ignorant people. I suggest you get together with James, and Srecko to learn how that privilege is applied by the laws and courts. The Watchtower is NOT going to violate the laws of the land just because ex-witnesses and apostates wish it.

You're funny. 

I mean really. 

Didn't answer my question at all, just created more chatter to try and build yourself up. 

Oh BTK, one day you'll get it, it will hurt, but you'll get it. 

8 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The Watchtower doesn’t directly claim clergy privilege,

have you not read the court transcripts?  If you have, then you are being dishonest, If you haven't, then you need to educate yourself. 

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

Depends on who has classified them as agents of Satan......

right!

oh, wait......it is the wt who classified them as such. 

On 8/25/2019 at 3:07 PM, Jack Ryan said:

The court decided last month that the disfellowshipping was against the Norwegian law and must be canceled.

I wonder what that will do?

Will the wt abide by the law?

Will the wt appeal? 

Will Norway become a reproof only region? 

17 hours ago, Arauna said:

but this crime happens in secret and qualified people need to work with it. 

Agreed. 

Key words:    "crime"  "secret"   "qualified"

12 hours ago, Anna said:

The reason why elders are to call legal is to see whether they are mandated reporters or not

Why? Give me one good reason why one would NOT report it? 

12 hours ago, Anna said:

Unfortunately, the organization seems to think it has to abide by that law.

I disagree. The law does not state that clergy is NOT allowed to report. That being said, if they report, they are not breaking the law. 

12 hours ago, Anna said:

One reason is that if an elder learns of a matter that has been disclosed in confidence to them by a victim, then the victim has the right to decide whether the matter should be taken to the police or not. Not the one to whom the matter was disclosed in confidence. 

This is partially true, the clergy privilege is when something is confessed one on one, not in the group setting as in a judicial meeting. 

12 hours ago, Anna said:

It has to be remembered that just because an elder applies clergy confidentiality, this does not mean that anyone else in the congregation is bound by it. Anyone and everyone has the right to make a report, even if unsubstantiated

How would anyone else in the cong know if it was only confessed to the elders?  They wouldn't, unless they were part of it  This is why a private reproof is BS! 

12 hours ago, Anna said:

This is why he best thing would be if the law would do away with clergy penitence, period.

again, you are thinking along the lines that secular authorities need to correct the wt, they will, just wait and see. 

Why is it that in the elders handbook that vandalism is reported immediately but child abuse is not? Does that seem right to you? I know it doesn't and that you don't think that way, but the wt does. 

5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

More appropriately, does one think it is right to contact the POLICE about criminal matters FIRST?

...... and then as a follow up, contact the Society's Legal Department!

The Elders will NOT tell you what is going on.

Bypass them!

 

I agree with you.       Why can't the wt see this as well?     Why does it take force to do the right thing?    Why does it take secular laws to force the wt to be Christ-like? 

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

I was asking because you made the claim that it wasn't an elder when in fact you do not know. It makes your other arguments lose effect because one cannot be sure if you are just guessing.

Court transcripts:

In February 1994, Evelyn and Andrea reported Kendrick's July 1993 sexual abuse of Andrea to the Fremont Police Department ("Fremont Police") and to Child Protective Services---Conti-Watchtower_North_Freemont_Cong._appellate_brief.pdf

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Not necessarily. Just because there is a lawsuit doesn't mean the plaintiff will win. It all depends on whether the court recognizes the law's self made problem, that of making clergy exempt from reporting. If it does, then elders cannot be blamed for not reporting. Of course this does not stop anyone else from reporting, which as has been seen, has been the case.

$35 million in Montana

Fessler settlement 

Conti

Campos

16 cases handled by Love & Norris law firm and a pay out of over $13 million

just to name a few and I am sure there will be plenty more to come. 

And again I ask:   

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled any of these cases? 

17 minutes ago, Anna said:

I don't remember being trained not to report a member of the congregation if I suspect them of committing a crime.

Of course you don't. It doesn't work that way. 

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

I would like to make one thing clear, I personally welcome any change that helps to make children safer. I also have no doubts that all Jehovah’s Witnesses feel the same. If it means lawsuits is the way to go, then so be it, I am not against that at all. I believe the Australian Royal Commission helped in making JW child protection policies more transparent, and helped in some necessary changes and adjustments. The lawsuits are also helping in avoiding ‘mistakes’ and ‘oversight’ and are promoting extra vigilance in protecting children. If along the road there are ‘casualties’, since no court of justice always metes out justice, so be it if it helps a child. 

I am glad to hear you say these things. I think we all want this. 

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

My arguments with the Candace Conti case was not to defend child molesters, (obviously!) but to fairly asses the case as far as it was possible for an amateur (me) (I have read all the hundreds of pages of the court transcript) and I have my own opinion on the Conti case.  No one will really know the true story, however, I agree with you, that if it has helped others to come forward, then it is a good thing.

if it helps others , I agree. 

20 minutes ago, Anna said:

And even IF some of those judgements end up wrong, it adds to the motive to protect children as far as humanly possible. And if it means that it restricts the freedom of adults (one elder told me that if he is using the rest room, and a young brother walks in, the elder leaves, and waits for the young brother to be done, before he walks back in, just so that there can never be any accusation) then so be it. And if it means a father cannot be alone with his own children then so be it. And if it means a mother cannot be alone with her own children so be it. Every adult and every relative, parent or step parent can be a potential child molester and a danger to their own children, step children and their children’s friends and should be watched so they are never alone with any child. After all, the ultimate goal is that no child is sexually molested in the first place, not just that a survivor gets compensated for the harm they have suffered.   

I think some of what you said in this paragraph is a little extreme, but I get the gist of what you are saying. Restricting people shouldn't be the answer, reporting it to those who are trained to handle such cases is.

I really want to know your opinion on this, Do YOU think it is right that elders are to contact the legal dept and not the police? 

15 hours ago, Anna said:

Do you know it wasn't an elder who reported him?

It couldn't have been. Why you ask? because it would make "Jehovah" sad.......(

15 hours ago, Anna said:

What difference does it make who reports? It should not be left only up to the elders to report. If someone molested my child it would be my prerogative to report and I would hope every parent felt the same. If I was an adult who had been victimized as a a child, and was finally able to speak out, I would report, hoping that the statute of limitations had not run out. 

Incidentally, Candace's perpetrator was reported to the police by his then wife (for molesting his step daughter) even before he allegedly molested Candace. There was ALREADY a police report about him. It didn't help Candace though.

It makes a huge difference as seen in the many many court cases going on right now against the wt. Lots of money is being taken from the wt because of their failure to report when they are aware of the abuse happening. 

Your prerogative, yes, however you've been trained not to because it would bring reproach on the name "Jehovah" aka. the wt. 

It didn't help Candice because the wt didn't warn the cong.  Again, it is all because it would make "Jehovah" sad. 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

She did not win in the way she wanted to, and the problem wasn't because the elders did not report. They couldn't report because they didn't know about Candace, and the perpetrator had already been reported during the first incident with his step daughter as mentioned above. The court reversed punitive damages because they found WT had no duty to warn (if it did, the same could have been said for the Police who knew about the first incident, and social services who knew about Candace).

Eventually the whole case rested on whether the perpetrator was allowed to go in service with Candace unsupervised. Ultimately it was her word against the elders words who claimed that Candace never went in service with the perpetrator on her own.

Extract from the final decision of the court:

 “We hold that defendants had no duty to warn the Congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that defendants can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community.  Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti during field service that he used as opportunities to molest her.Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim.  The compensatory damage award is affirmed".

She won, period.  

There is no law about letting the cong know, I get that, but I would hardly say that the elders were "protecting the flock". 
 

Let me ask you something:

Did they (edlers/wt) act in a Christ like way in the way that they handled Kendrick and his potential to harm more children? 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

That's a good job because in the end there was an out of court settlement and Candace probably didn't end up with much after paying her lawyers fees.....

Maybe, maybe not. But you know what she did get? Publicity! That right there opened the flood gates to give courage to others who were abused, to stand up and do something about it. it was the leak in the dam, and when the wt lost, others saw that it was possible to make the wt pay for their crimes! 

16 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes, that may have been her biggest motive, revenge on a religion she came to hate. Although unfortunately, even that is disputed because there is no real proof that her story is true with regard to the molestation while out in service. (Had the perpetrator molested her outside of church sponsored activity, she would have not been able to ask the org. for money). If that were the case, then her motive for winning would have been money. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe Candace was molested only once, on a Amtrak trip she went on with her father and the perpetrator. Candace had been shown to have lied at least once in her deposition, where her story didn't match up with facts. 

you can claim that she is a hater or a seeker of money, but that is what you have been told she is, but it doesn't make it so. 

On 7/29/2019 at 6:07 AM, Matthew9969 said:

Most rank and file have been conditioned to believe the governing body is Jehovah

No truer words spoken. 

It really isn't the rank and files fault either, they have been conditioned over the years to think that way by the way the publications are worded. If they say it subtly enough times, its bound to stick. 

11 hours ago, Anna said:

Obviously because he had been reported to the police, was tried, and found guilty.

You know it wasn't an elder who reported it, right ? Because it would have NEVER happened if it was left up to the elders to report. There in lies the crux of the problem and EXACTLY why Candice won. I do not feel that she was out for the money, but rather to stick it to the jw where it hurts them most. 

5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I didn't.  I never tried to "fit in', anywhere.

Ever.

The reason I throw my hat in with Jehovah's Witnesses is that they believe the same as I do (generally) ... not that I believe the same things they do.

There is a difference.

 

 

I get that, but to say that there is on one who can fire them, is not a true statement. 

I highly doubt that you throw your hat in with everything that they believe. 

Also, you did "fit in"  Being a self professed cowboy, renegade, man of guns, you don't quite look the part with the suit and tie in those pictures you posted. I also doubt that you put that suit on each day regardless of whether or not you are headed to the kh.  Just saying. 

8 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That reminds me of a Steve Martin comedy routine ( from memory ...) where he says "I am going to tell you how you can make a MILLION dollars, and never pay taxes. .... Yes I am going to tell you how to make a MILLION dollars .... and NEVER pay taxes.

First...

...get a million dollars.

THEN ...."

I get it, it isn't real easy when that has been your whole life up to this point.  The reality of it though is that it is quite that simple and easy. 

I'm sure you can relate if you put it in perspective. When you were a young child in school, I'm sure you noticed the different clic's, the group of rockers, the cowboys, the preppy kids, jocks etc. When figuring out your niche, you tried to fit into a group that you thought was "you", only to find out that it wasn't worth trying to please the group and become someone you just weren't. You left hat group and continued through life without much thought. You took with you some things you liked of the group and moved on and developed your own character. We all do it, have done it.  This clic, the wt, is just like that. Take from it what you choose and drop the rest. You have the power and ability to control your own life, without excess baggage. Does this mean "leave Jehovah and make him sad" ? Quite the opposite,  it means taking control of your own life and pressing into God with all of the knowledge you have gained thus far. I mean, the gb has already stated that they are not inspired and can very well screw up with what they force the rnf to accept. Why not allow the Bible alone to guide you WITH the knowledge you have taken from the clic? Unless you truly believe that by studying the Bible alone will lead you into darkness in a matter of months?