leavingwt: Now you really will think I sound like an attorney - but - "Mind Control" has been legally defined, and it does not include something that can be passive. (hearst v. new religious movements) That case defines: unless a religion purposely employed mind control techniques, their actions cannot be considered "Mind Control" per a legal term. Since there is no other case which has overturned this, this is what we call "Case Law", and gives the best clarity we have on the subject. Don't argue with me, but since Law governs us, that is just the way it is. Sorry, but this trumps your book.
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc 193 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
sweetstuff
Dear Johnny,
When I left the org it was with no actual "research" on doctrinal subjects. It was pretty simple, I saw for years the unbelievable amount of hypocrisy and un-christ like behavior that in fact lead me to the conclusion that the organization was not in fact, "God's organization". What lead me to this conclusion? Eye balls, ears and a brain.
Whether or not they actually "prophesied" or did not is not the point. The absolute inability of its members to question anything, which the bible commands btw, in and of itself speaks volumes about a lack of divinity heading the organization. Jesus wasn't a dictator, they are. Enough said.
-
AuldSoul
Not to be a stickler, johnnyc, (which is something a pedant says JUST before being pedantic) but case law determines what is or is not most likely legally ACTIONABLE. Case law does not determine what actually IS or IS NOT. I think you should modify your opinion stated above to take that bit of reality into consideration. FWIW, AuldSoul
-
johnnyc
AuldSoul: What you said is nonsense. You almost have to have a law background here, not to be a stickler, but if the Court decides a specific matter relating to a word definition, that word definition is carried forward as law until specifically challenged/heard otherwise by a higher court. That is why either the Plaintiff or Defendant could have appealed the one specific point of that definition all the way to the Supreme Court, and then they could have come back to their case to have an answer/decision made - to which that answer/decision is only good for the specific case at hand and merely a "guide" for other cases (in reference). But the specific definition made by the court can be separate from the greater decision (describing it as basic as possible here)
-
johnnyc
Here is some good info for you (from Wikipedia): Case law (also known as decisional law or judicial precedent) is that body of reported judicial opinions in countries that have common law legal systems. It includes courts' interpretations of statutes, and also constitutional provisions and administrative rules. Published court opinions include precedents, or rules governing future court decisions. Common-law upholds the fundamental English legal system, which is the jurisdiction to make laws. Additionally, constitutional law continues the case law of people's human rights. Case law is a method of deciding cases based on recorded decisions of similar cases.
-
johnnyc
sweetstuff: I can totally respect what you are saying, and I agree that the WT's viewpoint of how they don't want you studying material or question things not originating with them is way overboard - if not simply wrong. You are one of first people who posted without trying to ram something down my throat about what some book said or some wacky fanatic theory. ("Awakened at Gilead" was cool too)
-
johnnyc
btw, I keep trying to add paragraphs and things - how the heck do you guys do that??? Can I place HTML right in the "post"?
-
leavingwt
JohnnyC:
I hope you find what you're looking for. I cannot help you.
-LWT
-
johnnyc
leavingwt: Thank you for at least wishing me well. I respect that more than you know.
-
BabaYaga
How to make paragraphs:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/24/152397/1.ashx
And I agree with SweetStuff, just eyes and ears (and a heart) are enough to know. I left before there was an internet to search upon... (hahahah in the "land before time!")
I knew that the loving god was not pleased with the concept of disfellowshipping. So... irony of ironies, in knowing it was a horrible practice, I left, knowing that the same would probably be done to me.
Search and you will find.
Love,
Baba.