Deceptive or just wrong?

by johnnyc 193 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  isaacaustin

  isaacaustin: so then lets say a GB first got drunk...then, k? Lot did not voluntarily get drunk Johnnyc.

  	Gen 19:35	And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
  	Gen 19:36	Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Nor did Lot know who lay with him. This a red herring thrown into the argument by you and totally irrelevant to the original issue raised. Stay on topic boy.
• 

  AuldSoul

  johnnyc: What you said is nonsense.

  What I said is perfectly true, whether or not it is nonsense in your opinion. Case law ONLY applies in the courtroom when it comes to defining terms applicable to psychological or sociological matters. What constitutes mind control is not ONLY the court's to decide.

  What constitutes a legal standard for PROSECUTION or an actionable tort for LAWSUIT is the court's to decide. Case law only trumps Steve Hassan in a COURTROOM, and even then only until such time as the courts change their opinion on what constitutes mind control.

  In real life, the point at which mind control has been used is the point at which someone's mind has been controlled in some respect, whether or not it can be proven to have occurred according to the standards of proof in a court of law.

  In case law, the point at which mind control has been used is the point at which someone's mind can be PROVEN to have been controlled in some respect. That is the ONLY definition you will ever find in case law, a definition that can be evaluated according to standards of proof used in court. But such definitions are often not reasonable in real life; what actually is often cannot be proven to be by using the standards of proof according to law.

  Had someone suggested that Steve Hassan said you had a case against the WT society then your response would have merit. No one did that. In REALITY, where real people live as opposed to where they go to sue or prosecute people or organizations, mind control does not have to be intentional in order to be accomplished.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  isaacaustin

  To answer the original question of this thread...

  No the GB is not deliberately deceptive. They truly beleive that they are God's channel of truth to mankid and are appointed to lead his domestics. They will do whatever it takes to uphold this premise (regardless of the deception needed) and control the members to prevent them from researching this claim.
• 

  Mary

  johnnyc said: Mary: I did not say he (R. Franz) attacked the WTBTS in his book, but don't you know he has had many speaking engagements and other documents where he has...?

  Really? Please provide a link to a speaking engagement where Ray Franz "attacked the WTBTS intensely". Have you heard these speaking engagements firsthand or is this heresy?
• 

  isaacaustin

  Actually Ray defends the intentions of the WT Johnnyc.

  In his book (ISOCF) he talks of a time when he was invited onto a radio show to speak of his experiences in the WT and the host was very sarcastic, degrading the WT and calling it a cult. Ray mentioned how he ended up spending the hour or so defending the WT.

  Ray's books have no bitterness and he backs up his statements with documention. You will also find that his behind the scene explanations fit the reality of the history of the org (as far as changes in policy) like a glove.
• 

  johnnyc

  AuldSoul: Why don't you then quote for me a legal source that supports what you are saying? I've given you a reference, so give me one back. I'm not sure what your point is, as what you are saying is not correct.
  
  Here is the definition at law.com - so go ague to someone who doesn't know better.
  
  case law
  n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law," which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies; "regulatory law," which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes; and in some states, the common law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. Law students principally study case law to understand the application of law to facts and learn the courts' subsequent interpretations of statutes.
• 

  leavingwt

  The cult is big on legalism, as were the Pharisees. Has anyone else thought of this, while reading some of these posts?

  -LWT
• 

  johnnyc

  Mary: His extra activities are posted everywhere - including Youtube - check it out, easy to search, and there are many different videos.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Post 69 of 69 since 08-Mar-08

  Mary: His extra activities are posted everywhere - including Youtube - check it out, easy to search, and there are many different videos.

  And please point to one that is JWbashing, as opposed to calmly and factually relating his experiences.
• 

  johnnyc

  leavingwt: Paul also used the law. Law is what governs us, even if you don't like it (just try to do something against the law and you will quickly find out). Law governed the nation of Israel - and it was the Mosaic Law which tried Jesus. Jesus never said "Law is bad" or "forget law", he criticized the Pharisees for their wrongful interpretation. Law is a HUGE part of the bible.
  
  Commands are synonymous with the term "Law" - the 10 Commandments were later detailed into the Mosaic Law. Jesus' greatest commandments should be viewed at the "Greatest Laws", since there are direct consequences for them not being followed.
  
  Lastly, I have been drawn into this law conversation by a flagrant comment that could not be left uncorrected and it has expounded from there.