TrueTomHarley

Is the pope Catholic? Of course they do. It is the clearing-house anticult organization of French government sponsorship, and its VP is the driver of anti-JW narrative in Russia. The German Court looked it over and judged that Jehovah’s Witnesses were being defamed. It was not their mission to make any judgment upon the faith itself. Doubtless it reasoned that, in the event that Jehovah’s Witnesses are unorthodox, even weird, one can easily solve the problem by not being one of them, and if one already is, to quit and go elsewhere. It’s a big world.

Of course. When an NGO makes defamatory statements 53% of the time, and those statements, through the influence of their Russian VP, goes on to cause gargantuan injustices in that land, one would hope they would somehow be leaned upon to make good. Whether that will happen or not I am not so sure. We are dealing with different jurisdictions, after all. The credibility of FECRIS suffering a serious setback is the most tangible development so far. Whether it moves into anything of greater consequence is anyone’s guess.

What a stupid statement! “Interpretation of Bible text” is not what is on trial here. What—we are all required to interpret Bible text in a certain way? Jehovah’s Witnesses are a ‘one true faith” religion. There are many ‘one true faith’ religions. As such, they are known to criticize other religions, as all ‘one true faith’ religions criticize other religions. It is a valid read of the Scriptures that any perusal will suggest just might be true—that there is one true faith. But if they would “not allow any faiths” they would call for violence against them. They would try to get politicians to pass laws against them. Instead, the “weapons” of Jehovah’s Witnesses are words only. Tell them ‘no’ and they go away. Joel Engardio has stated how Witnesses provide a fine example, perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized views can yet co-exist peacefully. There is a difference between criticizing and disallowing. The back of a cigarette package contains a very strong warning agains smoking. Does that mean people are not allowed to smoke?

What on earth is wrong with you? This is FECRIS, the spinner of defamation against Jehovah’s Witnesses, being tried before the German Court. Do you really think they would have provided no evidence to back up their claims? You probably served as their advisor. Of course the Court saw whatever FECRIS deemed useful for them to see. The Court looked it over, and declared it irrelevant or insufficient to justify FECRIS’s defamation..

The German Court, representing persons of legal stature who have both oars in the water, pronounced it absolutely false. That goes for all the other hyperbolic statement you issued, too.

Any statement by any person represents “ideology.” The difference between the ideology of FECRIS and the ideology of Introvigne is that the first stands for intolerance and the second for tolerance. Introvigne would allow all law-abiding faiths to exist. FECRIS would not. Introvigne draws the line at defaming faiths with false statements. FECRIS does not. 53% of the statements they make regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses are factually incorrect. It is not enough for FECRIS to say they don’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have to lie about them, too. The United States [bipartisan] Commission on International Religious Freedom denounces the “anti-cult” ideology (of which FECRIS is a foremost part) for its “pretension to standing as the final arbiter of religious truth.” FECRIS is a humanist organization. It will tolerate religion only so long as religion embraces humanist goals. If religion is eviscerated to the point where it becomes a majority-rule affair, and thus as subject to contemporary trends as anyone else, FECRIS has no problem with it. How does FECRIS know that that model is agreeable with God? It doesn’t, and it doesn’t care. Humanist goals are what it champions. It is plain that Christianity never would have taken root in the first century had FECRIS been around then. The manifest human authority revealed in New Testament writing would have been denounced by them as outside interference. “It is necessary to shut the mouths of these men,” Paul wrote of one situation back then. You think FECRIS would have stood still for that? It just may be that human authority is inherent in how God leads his worshippers. Any reading of scripture would certainly suggest so, yet that is a suggestion that FECRIS will not let stand. So it is that they presume to stand “as the final arbiter of religious truth.” It matters not whether one agrees with the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is not the issue taken up by Introvigne or the German Court. The obvious course for anyone in disagreement with the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not to be one. Upon taking that course, there is no longer any problem. Introvigne himself obviously doesn’t agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses in all things, maybe in none of them. Otherwise, he would be one. He is not. He is Roman Catholic. What he is is a voice calling for tolerance between religions. Criticizing other faiths if fine, so long as one does not lie about them. Lord knows Witnesses have criticized other faiths, but they do not lie about them. FECRIS does—53% of the time, it turns out. If I recall correctly, early Christianity was controversial, so much so that 40 years after Jesus death, Nero was throwing them to the lions. Introvigne would just prefer not to see the scenario repeat. Anything wrong with that?

No they do not. They seek the opinion of the court that their theology and practices are not being lied about by FECRIS—whether they are correct or not is immaterial. And the court says, in 17 instances out of 32, that FECRIS has indeed lied about them in “defamatory” statements. It is a prime example of Jesus’ words on how opposers would “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing about you.” It hardly matters, does it? Would you invite for your keynote speaker someone with a GPA of .6 in their field of expertise? “Well, he doesn’t lie all the time—let’s see what he has to say!” Perhaps in your twisted world that would work, but not in any world respecting integrity. A far more significant detail that the article does not show is that the VP of FECRIS, Alexander Dvorkin, is the prime instigator of the ban against JWs in Russia. Armed with FECRIS ideology, he shouts “CULT!” in the crowded Russian theater with “facts” that are incorrect 53% of the time. Thus he and his FECRIS is responsible for the mayhem that results. Each time a Witness is beaten, tortured, jailed, detained, or harassed, it falls upon him. It is the same as how someone shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater would be held accountable. Hopefully, now that his credibility is seriously undercut, the government may reassess the degree to which they wish to rely upon his “expertise.” I’m not holding my breath, but it may be like when the US Supreme Court ruled during WWII that Witness children could be compelled to salute the flag. A wave of persecution broke out across the country that saw widespread destruction of property, and even some Witnesses lynched. In the aftermath of what had been unleashed, 2 or 3 of the justices gave to understand they thought the case had been decided incorrectly. Another 2 or 3 retired and were replaced by ones thought more agreeable to individual liberty. The case came before the court once again, just three years later, and the decision was reversed. Would that such a thing were to happen in Russia.

Exactly. Jehovah’s Witnesses have to be the most tolerant of religions in that, with regard to confronting other faiths, their weapons are words only. Not only do they reject the hard violence of physical persecution of those of other beliefs, they also reject the soft violence of attempting to legislate their views upon others. In this case you have ones who failed to remake the JW organization in their own image, and who thereafter resort to incessantly attacking it, pitching and repitching many of the same defamatory mischaracterizations that FECRIS was rebuked for—and concocting some of their own. Three times in the last few weeks their have been statements against the JW organization (one from Witness, and two from Patiently Sitting on my Hands) that almost immediately had to be retracted as they were found to be false. Will that prevent further misrepresentations? I doubt it. In the face of this, ones adhering to the JW way of worship either respond with some bluntness or walk away. I would not choose the same words as Arauna, (OCD hate) but I see where she gets it from. Having left the JW faith, presumably you’ve found a life somewhere else. Continually attacking the faith you were not able to change smacks of sour grapes—why do you not move on in life? OCD is not such an unreasonable description at all.

Not crumbled completely, however. Here is a German Court that ruled how most of the “anti-cult” organization, FECRIS—most of their charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses were false. https://bitterwinter.org/fecris-sentenced-in-germany-for-defaming-jehovahs-witnesses/ It is the VP of that organization who rides high in Russia and is a prime instigator of the ban on Witnesses. Would that the ruling had more teeth, but it is still good to show that the world of judicial reason does not side with such anti-cult fanatics. All the other “cults” FECRIS opposes—Witnesses disagree with them all, and they with us. But we prefer to ‘do battle’ with them in the marketplace of ideas, not by ruling them illegal and muzzling them. Whatever ruling illegal is to be done will be done by God, not any humans.

Of course. Originate your own content and nobody has a problem. Anyone posting on the internet knows that pictures from ANYONE cannot be used without authorization. You get around that by obtaining authorization, using your own photos, or finding public domain sources. I run into this all the time with my own posts. As for text, when the intention of anything other than brief “fair use” passages is to misrepresent and beat them over the head with it, of course they will not be happy about it. Only a dodo would read paranoia into it.

Means nothing. Not to worry. But JTR used to say that phrase a lot. I don’t seriously think you’re him. But in these days of multiple personalities, nothing can be categorically ruled out. Hmm. The more I think about it...

This better not be JTR in drag.

Practically speaking, how does that work? What’s it like there that some would choose it for their future?

On the other hand, upon resurrection, if it should turn out that God has really done this, perhaps she could thank him for having given her a heads-up in advance so she wouldn’t be one of those who went down. And if it should turn out that he hasn’t done this, that there are more survivors than she envisioned, where’s the beef? ”Destruction of the wicked” has been a Bible theme from the moment pen was put to parchment. All but the most liberal of churches have it to some degree. Many put it far worse that JWs do, by preaching that God would torment the wicked FOREVER in hell, as payback for just A FEW DECADES of wrongdoing. Doesn’t your church believe something like that?

This reminds me of when Pastor Inqvist was talking lessons from the TV preacher in order to spice up his sermons, and he was pausing in such odd...........places, that nobody could follow him. Yes, sorry about everyone who has died, of course. That said, I doubt very much I would post it online were a loved one of mine to pass away.

That old hen. hehehe :))))) You’re joking! She’d rather be dead forever?

Only ‘dodo.’ And only when it is appropriate. Which, admittedly, occurs frequently.

I don’t hate you. I consider you a dodo. There’s a difference.

It won’t go to trial because there is no complaint. It is just PSoMHs puffing up the griping of one of his friends.

I think this is a good way to put it. It accounts for “extremism” being extended into things that never used to be thought extremist at all—quirky, perhaps, but not “extremist”—like the “preaching of the good news” or any suggestion that one should be “no part of the world.”

Furthermore, since the coroner has since made clear that no way did any other party (JW or otherwise) fail to pick up on signals, this next statement of the story must be completely made up: ”And Mr McGovern warned that similar deaths could happen in the future if lessons were not learned from this incident.” And his “shock” is overstated, since his clarification makes plain that he was not shocked at all: ‘But to the shock of the county's coroner, Sean McGovern, it was revealed that the pensioner had earlier informed a senior church member of his murderous plan.’ And, as stated previously, I am even suspicious of the phrase ‘devout Jehovah’s Witness.’ How many reporters, in this secular age, use the word ‘devout?’ It smacks of a hit job—a Witness-bashing writer pulling out all the stops, be they valid or not, to connect a painful human tragedy, someone snapping under the stress of seeing a loved ones health dissipate and vanish, even a misguided ‘mercy killing,’ with a religious group he detests, to pursue his own vendetta. And if this is the case, it is more than “an apostate lie” that ‘Patiently Sitting on My Hands’ champions. It is “a despicable apostate lie.”

The phrase you are looking for is: ‘a lie.’ Headline of your story reads: “Coroner blasts Jehovah’s Witnesses for not stopping....” Whereupon the coroner himself, who has other things to do but is annoyed at being misrepresented, must set the record straight: “We would like to state that at no time did the Coroner find that opportunities existed and/or were missed by any individual or group to prevent the murder.” One might even say the phrase you are looking for is: “an apostate lie.” Who else would turn the Coroner’s statement inside out?

@Anna@ThinkingThere is an update on this. Turns out there was no censure at all, and it took the coroner himself to set the record straight. ”We would like to state that at no time did the Coroner find that opportunities existed and/or were missed by any individual or group to prevent the murder.” https://redditchstandard.co.uk/news/clarification-of-coroners-findings/?fbclid=IwAR1YUsWpy38RFhiS4mBvYA8f_oHJ-z95XSLSMHMXv2YFunyMEKwS5ipX2yM Once again, the story was posted here by a dodo who presents his wishful thinking as though it was fact.

Hopefully when the TA appears, he will say: “Sorry I took so long. Sorry about there being no guidance whatsoever for the sheep while I was waking up. Thanks for trying to keep certain yo-yos in check while I was delaying.

For similar reasons, I swore off badminton