Anna

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Sometimes, the Org invites backlash by being so vitriolic about other Christian faiths

I have not read or heard ANYTHING vitriolic by the Org. regarding other Christian faiths (besides perhaps Rutherford's remarks back in the 40's) Could you perhaps give a few examples?

I don't know if anyone has read these news articles. They are pretty objective. And they are in English  

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/jehovahs-witnesses-in-russia-brace-for-a-final-blow-57343

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-justice-ministry-calls-for-country-wide-ban-on-jehovahs-witnesses-57458

Judging from the supreme court website, the (decisive?) court hearing will be 4th April 2017. I tried to post a link to the supreme court website with the JW case and strangely it won't let me...

7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Interesting they didn't insist on calling the "POPE" if they want to cut out the middle man. Funny how things work, here and elsewhere.

That's maybe because they don't view our GB as they do the Pope, which I'm glad about! The Pope has celebrity status, I hope our GB are not viewed that way. (I just has a visual of him answering questions in his skull cap and and white cape...the Pope I mean) And also the Pope is just one, whereas we have 7 representatives and one of them was already a part of the hearing in 2015. They obviously thought it wouldn't be any trouble for him to repeat the gesture. 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There was also a suggestion somewhere that our people are acting so as to safeguard assets for any place they or individual elders may have erred. Even the word 'cynical' was used.

Oh? And everyone else approaches the bench with wallet opened: "Here, Judge, help yourself! Take as much as you want!"?

Regardless of the merits of any case, pedophilia or otherwise, lawsuits today are the premiere growth industry, which in itself says much about this system of things. 

From 'Tom Irregardless:' "At any rate, early in 2010 a Portland, Oregon jury determined the Boy Scouts of America was responsible for the above gross sexual abuse of a child, and assessed a judgment of $18.2 million in damages. That was said to be the largest such verdict in American history on behalf of a single plaintiff.

"Eighteen million is a lot of dough. What’s one person ever going to do with it? But it plays into that uniquely Western notion that money is the way to compensate for anything. Sometimes I think much anti-West sentiment is stirred up through that mindset, especially among nations where family ties are strong. Some foreign national is killed through Western action. “Gee, that’s a shame,” is the response, “oh well, here’s some money.” Who can forget the French peasant in Tale of Two Cities who wasn’t satisfied with the silver coins tossed from the coach of the aristocrat which had run down his child?

"Possibly one can argue that, if money truly is the god of society, anything short of a huge monetary penalty will have no effect. You can’t shame or guilt anyone, so the theory goes, since we have ridden ourselves of those concepts. A representative of the plaintiff’s legal team stated afterward his belief that the Boy Scouts have undertaken a truly noble and important task in mentoring young boys, for which they are to be commended, and it was his sincere hope that the $18 million judgment will impress upon them the need to do it better. Now, that is an American sentiment if ever there was one. I guess I’d be more persuaded if that team plowed their one-third of the award back into charitable causes, perhaps even the Boy Scouts themselves, with the stipulation that it be used for anti-pedophile purposes. And maybe they did. Do you think so?"

I'll even put a crass link for the book here: I've already written this stuff. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

Where I live, a local legal team is running non-stop ads: "After my accident, Friskem and Goode got me $5 million, 35 times what the insurance company said." That comes out of the fatcat insurance company's pocket? Of course not. It comes out of my neighbors' pockets. They celebrate with me at my bonanza with the insurance company. Then they open their insurance premium bills.

Whatever Bethel may be doing with contributed funds is well over my head. But they are the 'faithful steward.'

 

So in other words you are saying that it's understandable that WT might be trying to safeguard assets. Which is what I said.

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Our people are united. It isn't our fault if the world is carved up into 200 separate entities. What if they all insisted upon meeting the top guy?

I agree. But the ARC were made aware in case 29 (which was the case held in 2015) that the GB have the last word in all decisions, so I guess they just wanted to cut out the middle man...

Well I didn't really want to start a new topic, and as I was typing what I posted below, I realized it was not that off topic as I thought it would be, since the manner in which Christ was nailed to the torture device might have a direct baring on what kind of torture device it was, whether it was a stake or a cross type of thing.

But anyway, Admin thought it was better moved to its own thread.....not that I would really want to discuss it...

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

or the probability that GOD would NOT have associated the “Cross”  a Pagan Symbol, to be venerated by true Christians?

True Christians would not venerate any symbol surely would they?

My thoughts are that Jehovah evidently did not interfere in his Son’s unjust trial, and He completely “forsook” him at the point of his execution, so I wonder would He then see the need to influence what torture device was used in Jesus’ execution, if for example a cross had traditionally been used by the Pagan Romans at that time? After all, it was a pagan execution. Regardless of what torture device was used it was only venerated by counterfeit Christians, and as we see, even if it had been a stake, it made no difference to them, they still like their cross.

But I chose to take the attitude of Eoin and others on here:

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

"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/

Maybe this is not completely relevant to the discussion, but has anyone noticed in today's WT study (WT January2017 ) the illustration of Jesus on the stake, with the nails going through his wrists rather than through the palm of his hands? I haven't noticed this before, perhaps we have always drawn it this way and I just didn't pay enough attention. I remember reading somewhere some technicalities about the actual physical possibilities or impossibilities, and one argument was that the victim could not be nailed to a stake through the hands as the weight of the body would rip through the palms (sorry, this is so morbid) and the only way it could be through the palms is if the downward weight was distributed with the arms tied to a cross beam and the then the palms nailed (I guess for added anguish). In any case, when Thomas needed confirmation of Jesus' resurrection he said at John 20:25 .....“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Is this a case of a broad usage for "hand"? And could it mean anything from the fingers to the wrists, including the wrists? In some languages the translation of hand can be a little confusing because it can also mean the whole arm in another language. Only the context can give a clue as to what is meant, whether it is a hand, and arm, the forearm or the whole arm including the hand...This also got me to thinking about the translation of stauros, could that also encompass  not just a vertical beam but some horizontal beams?

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Anna: Would it be possible for a man to drag a pole that size quite some distance, perhaps over a kilometer? It seems to make more sense that the vertical poles were already in place, and secured in the ground.

Interesting how some can be so blinded that they are forced to go contrary to bible understanding to undermine simple logic, Mark 15:21 Wow! Even I was taken by surprise on this one!

The NKJV Study Bible 2014

The King on a Cross

(Matt. 27:32–44; Luke 23:26–43; John 19:17–27)

^21pThen they compelled a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to bear His cross.

^22qAnd they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull. [p.9012]

I don't see how that disqualified anything I said.....because I did also say that perhaps the stake that was carried could have been the cross piece, a smaller piece which would be nailed horizontally to the upright stake already in place...

14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Nor do I assume the overlords here are Witnesses; if they are, they certainly are avant-garde Witnesses. They're all liars, or potential liars, on the internet. It's only those you personally know that you can be sure of.

That's why one shouldn't take anything personally and keep things merely factual, without too much emotion. These are merely discussions (or unfortunately sometimes debates) and people expressing their views and opinions and then giving reasons for their views and opinions. It we can respect that, then one can have some meaningful discussions sometimes.....Just my opinion!

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

Yes, that is true of course, but why do you think it mattered?

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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" "

I know it's a rhetorical question because I am sure you have something in mind already, but I still think it didn't necessarily mean it excluded a cross beam. It would have been perhaps unnecessarily descriptive to have to say "Accursed is every man hung upon a stake with a cross beam". But at the same time of course it could have been just that, a stake and nothing else. To be honest I would prefer it if it was that way. I don't like the idea of Christ nailed to a cross. But I just cannot make that claim a 100% as I really don't think anyone knows a 100%. Bearing in mind also the actual physics of carrying a pole thick enough in circumference to support a man and long enough to sit securely in the ground with enough height for a man to be suspended far enough above ground (JWI made a simple calculation). Would it be possible for a man to drag a pole that size quite some distance, perhaps over a kilometer? It seems to make more sense that the vertical poles were already in place, and secured in the ground. So then could a cross beam be called a torture stake? One could still be hung upon it. But then again how would the victim be hoisted up onto the vertical stake, with a cross beam having to be nailed to it. Anyone who has done a bit of carpentry knows a horizontal beam can't just be nailed to a vertical beam without it moving all over the place, it has to be secured properly. I haven't researched that....it's kind of gruesome. All in all I think history is a bit unreliable and I don't care what anyone says, but we cannot trust it 100%. That's why I don't like to be dogmatic about any topic like this.

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 I don't want to spend the rest of my life crossing and uncrossing Taus!

I hear you. I don't either!

15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

That's just it, I don't think anyone knows. 

Perhaps they are building giant underground bunkers to survive Armageddon?

No seriously, it seems to me you are just being septical without having concrete proof for anything. Perhaps you should start another thread since it really doesn't belong here, and then we can discuss it to death.

2 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Your right, you didn't. There's a big difference with the manner of Christ execution than that what would have been acceptable by Christ to use, much less God.

So what are you saying? Are you saying Christ had a choice in what was used?

15 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Also, the WTS has also been on record that God nor Christ would have associated their divinity to such a pagan symbol.

If I understand what you mean, then I think you are wrong. The whole abominable performance was wrong and atrocious right from the start. And Jehovah allowed it. He allowed Christ to be executed as a criminal (in the eyes of the pagans) in a most degrading way. Why would it matter that the tool of execution might have also been a pagan symbol, since it was performed by pagans?

18 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

Why should they take Bobby's word for it? What if Bobby is not the sharpest tool in the box? Or what if Bobby has raised false alarms in the past? But they should definitely encourage Bobby to go to the police and the police can start their investigative process.

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

 It would need to start out like a 10 foot telephone pole. This is another reason that a victim might carry his cross, or board, or stake in the form of a crossbeam or patibulum.

 

That makes a lot of logical sense. So really, there could have been two stakes, the ones already in the ground, and then smaller stakes (the cross beams) which the victim carried. This would not necessarily contradict the scriptures since they do not specify WHAT stake (stauros) Jesus carried. And also by saying Jesus was hung on a stake does not necessarily exclude a cross beam either.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

However, there is no place for dogmatism on this matter

I would say this should be primary because it really does not matter on what type of instrument Jesus died does it? I mean it should not matter to Jehovah's Witnesses, but it might matter to Christendom since the cross is THEIR symbol. Or could it be because the cross is Christendom's symbol it became so abhorrent to Rutherford and others, so much so that they tried to find any evidence to contradict it? This is of course speculation on my part, but given the climate around that time, when the the Bible Students became increasingly aware that the cross had no place in true worship, and later, Rutherford's aggressive campaign against false religion, mainly Christendom ("religion is a snare and a racket") it would have seemed to give the right impetus to take another look at the instrument of Jesus' death and to try and find evidence against the cross. JWI mentions the book Riches by Rutherford: "On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.”

The truth is that most historical paintings depict Jesus nailed to a cross. This of course does not mean that this was fact, but merely that the artists and almost everyone throughout the centuries sometime after Jesus' death believed that the cross was what Jesus died on. The question is, which came first; the belief that Jesus died on a cross, or the belief that the cross is a "Christian" symbol therefor Jesus must have died on a cross? Didn't Constantine become a believer when he supposedly had a vision of the cross? ......

Ann and Allen's research shows that really one cannot be a 100% sure of the instrument of Jesus' death. JWs of course do have to take some kind of stand but it is good if we can say we believe Jesus probably died on a stake rather than be dogmatic about it and insist he DID die on a stake. Just think how funny it will be if in the new system we get to find out he actually died on a cross. But since whether he did or didn't, shouldn't play a fundamental role in our faith, then we will not need to feel embarrassed. The opposite could be true also.

As a side note, the paradoxical thing is that Rutherford mentions that "Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.” The word crucified itself means being nailed to a crux or the cross....just a silly observation 

......then there is of course the crux simplex...the upright stake. Going to have to do some research on the etymology of the word crux...

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

the attempted carrying of such by a already weakened man over very rough terrain for some distance it would have been impossible for Jesus or any man including Samson to carry out such a task especially a cross but not so for a stake.

I thought the idea was that Jesus carried the stake and someone else carried the cross beam (or vice versa). Then these two pieces of wood were nailed together on site...

I don't know, but has it occurred to anyone that because the Romans were pagan, and it was the Romans who executed Jesus, that perhaps they may have used a pagan symbol, or at least the type of torture device that was popular in those days for THEM, and if the cross was what was popular in those days, then there is no reason why it couldn't have been a cross. Really, it is irrelevant whether it was a cross or something else since it wasn't Jesus or Jehovah who were deciding.

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

 All of this is only my opinion from my perspective

So in your opinion, what do you think is happening with all the stacks of money that in your opinion is surplus from estates sold etc.?

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know this might sound cynical because it echoes the 'follow the money' line of thinking.

Well, not really. In this system there is very little you can do without money. Even God's word recognizes that money is for a protection. I can see why such actions you describe would be prudent. If we take it to its grass roots, and remember Satan is the ruler of this system, then he could very well be using the world's systems (legal or otherwise) to incapacitate or halt the work of the Witnesses. To survive in this system, in the sense that the Witnessing work can carry on, you have to beat the system at its own game. So what you have said about the reasons the GB perhaps not wanting to participate makes complete sense, and I never thought about it that way. The problem some have with that is that they immediately assume "following the money" means someone is lining their pockets, sipping Sangria on a private island, while others are suffering.

P.S. Although brother Rook swears all the money is being pooled into HQ so that Br. Morris can buy a Rolex and Br. Herd his blingy cuff links......

Just piping in here. I have a question. It seemed to bother the ARC that the WT side was not represented by a member of the Governing Body, and that is quite understandable. To quote them:

"Given that the Governing Body is based in the United States, the Royal Commission does not have the power to compel a member of the Governing Body to give evidence in this hearing. Nevertheless, on 16 January 2017, the Royal Commission wrote to Watchtower Australia requesting that a member of the Governing Body be available to give evidence at this hearing whether in person or by video link. On 31 January 2017, Watchtower Australia informed the Royal Commission that a member of the Governing Body would not be available to give evidence.  That is a matter of considerable regret given the degree to which the Australia Branch is subject to the control of the Governing Body on matters of policy, procedure and practice". - page 4 of the OPENING ADDRESS BY SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTING.

The only possible reason I could come up with for a member of the GB desisting from participation is that one member cannot act on behalf of the other members in that capacity. But they could all be present by video link surely? So does anyone know what the reason could be?

And why did the GB think it was OK to have Tool and O'Brien again, if, as JWI mentions, their last performance was evidently not appreciated by the GB. It indeed seemed an awkward representation of the WT. If a member of the GB could not give evidence, then surely one of the GB helpers could have? With something this important.

On 3/8/2017 at 3:03 PM, JW Insider said:

Even though he doesn't believe in it, he still defended it because of all the persons who have died.

That is scary and has crossed my mind before. However, I still think that the scriptures are pretty clear when it comes to using blood. As we know blood holds special religious and spiritual significance in the Bible, in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek scriptures. It was to be poured out onto the ground and "returned to Jehovah"  only in special circumstances was it to be used any other way (painted on door posts (Egypt), and sprinkled on the altar in presenting sacrifices). What would be interesting though is to find out the reasons for WHY he apparently no longer believes in it. He must have some good arguments right?

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Another world famous Catholic who suffered doubts ...

... in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,--Listen and do not hear--the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me--that I let Him have [a] free hand."

[...]

The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever--or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist."

That absence seems to have started at almost precisely the time she began tending the poor and dying in Calcutta, and--except for a five-week break in 1959--never abated. Although perpetually cheery in public, the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God.  ...

http://time.com/4126238/mother-teresas-crisis-of-faith/

 

And that's where false religion leaves you....

Also:

                  The Royal Commission will hear evidence that of the 17 allegations of child sexual abuse that the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia have received since Case Study 29, they have reported 15 allegations to the authorities.  In both cases that were not reported, the adult survivors of historical abuse elected not to report and the Jehovah’s Witness organisation abided their decisions.

12 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

So if you're going to be judgmental, then be equal across the board. When it comes to child safety, there’s no clear solution by “anyone”, other than a new system of things, but as a human race, we “all” fail.

Yes, true of course. But I think the point is that as JWs, the elders, (and any member of the congregation really), if they have reasonable evidence or a suspicion of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the authorities, like they would with the reasonable evidence or suspicion of any other crime.....

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

This “leaked” report has to be viewed with skepticism since the Excel document was not protected, and anyone could have made changes.

Possible. But still doesn't change what I said above.

By the way, you all might know this already, regarding today's hearing (case 54) copies of either the pdf or word docs are available for download on the ARC website.

This is an extract from the opening address regarding what happened with the 1006 alleged perpetrators who were never reported to the police:

Page 12-13

1.                In Case Study 29, Watchtower Australia produced 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Officers at the Royal Commission reviewed these case files and as a result the Royal Commission referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police in accordance with its power under 6P(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

            Of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either   insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police.

34 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s an interesting observation. Let's perform a séance to call on the ancient powers to speak with Caylee Marie Anthony, Nicole Brown Simpson, Jimmy Hoffa, the Black Dahlia, the Lindberg Baby, oh yeah! Jack the ripper to get input from both sides.

 

And all the unsolved crimes that pass through the legal secular system that is, supposed to have the “best” forensics available. Talk about watching too much “fake” news, this thread is a good example. But, how boring would this world be without exaggeration and sensationalism? When the “VICTIM gets further victimized by the “very” people that are paid to “Protect” and “Serve” the victim by covering up the allegation to protect high officials, or the government itself.

 

REPOST: UNITED KINGDOM
Reuters

Britain's inquiry into historical child sex abuse, dogged by problems since it was launched three years ago and leading to the resignation of three chairmen, finally began holding its first public hearings on Monday.

The inquiry, one of its largest and most expensive ever undertaken, was set up in July 2014 by now-Prime Minister Theresa May in her former role as interior minister after a series of shocking abuse scandals dating back decades, some involving celebrities and politicians.

It is expected to take some five years to complete.

In a number of cases, victims said institutions had actively covered up cases at the behest of powerful establishment figures including senior lawmakers, spies and police officers.

"This is an important day for the work of the inquiry," chairman Alexis Jay said. "Today marks ... the opening of the first public hearing in which the inquiry will hear live and read evidence from complainants."

Posted by Kathy Shaw

No one is saying if you take an allegation of child sexual abuse to the authorities all will be solved. Of course there is no guarantee of that. Just like there are unconvicted murderers running lose, there will be unconvicted child molesters running lose. The point is, just like suspect murderers should be reported, so should suspect child sexual abusers be reported. Both are crimes.