Deceptive or just wrong?

by johnnyc 193 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  AuldSoul

  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.

  johnnyc,

  'case law' and every other definition you find at LAW.com will apply specifically and exclusively to the LAW, not to reality. The law does not define reality, the law defines the LAW, and nothing more. It is often not even particularly USEFUL in reality, but is often only useful within courtrooms.

  The definition you QUOTED explains this very clearly. I do not need to cite another source, case law serves to help people understand the application of LAW to FACTS. The facts can frequently be true IN REALITY, but be found inadmissable by the standards of LAW.

  Would Steve Hassan's criteria for determining mind control hold up in court? Probably not. Does that automatically make his criteria incorrect? DEFINITELY not. You could likewise not prove the existence of God in a court of law. Does that fact, in itself, mean God is not real? Neither could you successfully DISPROVE the existence of Santa Clause in a court of law. Does that fact mean Santa Clause DOES exist?

  The law does not define reality, it only defines the law and demonstrates the application of LAW to facts; not reason or reality, just law.

  I hope you get it, johnnyc, but I am becoming doubtful.
• 

  johnnyc

  leavingwt: Your patronizing posts would indicate otherwise.
• 

  isaacaustin

  isaacaustin: The law of love is a law. Sure, it is not a written list of rules as the WT purports. It even has subparts No, it is an overriding principle... - Love God, Love your neighbor, Love your enemy, etc etc. covered by the principle of love...of course God comes first Jesus did not fulfill LAW, he fulfilled THE LAW - the MOSAIC LAW. Exactly. Why are we even having this debate, since I can't see where we are in great conflict. Do you believe in law??? In law? Such as the law of the land? Yes. Such as a list of written rules a Christian is to follow? No. Please re-read what I posted above in Hebrews. This law of love is written in our hearts and is an overriding principle in everything. Not a list of things that are banned and things that are required. The WT has more rules to it than the Mosaic Law had! If yes, then we are done. I agree. Your assertions have no basis except in a WT.
• 

  isaacaustin

  This is where the WT fails big-time (one of the many areas)

  	Hbr 8:10	For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
  	Hbr 8:11	And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
• 

  leavingwt

  I'm an Apostate, insisting that WT is a destructive cult. If that's equal to selling crazy, I'm guilty as charged.
• 

  isaacaustin

  When I think of the WT I can see no more of a direct fulfillment of Jesus words at matt 15:8 and 9

  This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.

  But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
• 

  isaacaustin

  leavingwt: No you are wrong. I a very open to other ideas actually. Its just boneheads on this forum want to argue every possible aspect of every possible meaning of every possible word. As opposed to blindly accepting the WT drivel on what the words mean (always tailored in each case to support WT doctrine)? If you get that I am arguing these points on my own then you are much more blind than I - and apparently it is I who cannot help you. Go sell crazy somewhere else -
• 

  johnnyc

  You know, have any of you stopped to look in the mirror? I mean really, you may have left the JW organization, but do you realize that all you really have done is "changed sides"...? You attack the WTBTS for acting and teaching and arguing a certain way, but do you ever look at the way you now argue for the "dark side". YOU DO SO the same exact way! I get done arguing with my mother about the "truth", and I come here to argue the "flip" position, and I get the same sort of responses - read this book, read this scripture....all with the same sort of dogmatic viewpoints a witnesses has - just in reverse. You probably would like to think that you have all become so intellectually wise and understanding of people - but don't kid yourselves - you haven't changed(with certain exception of ones who have been sincere). You simply are on another team, but with the same tactics and argument sense you had as a witness. You condemn the very thing you are.
• 

  isaacaustin

  You know, have any of you stopped to look in the mirror? I mean really, you may have left the JW organization, but do you realize that all you really have done is "changed sides"...? You attack the WTBTS for acting and teaching and arguing a certain way, but do you ever look at the way you now argue for the "dark side". YOU DO SO the same exact way! I get done arguing with my mother about the "truth", and I come here to argue to "flip" position, and I get the same sort of responses - read this book, read this scripture....all with the same sort of dogmatic viewpoints a witnesses has - just in reverse. You probably would like to think that you have all become so intellectually wise and understanding of people - but don't kid yourselves - you haven't changed(with certain exception of ones who have been sincere). You simply are on another team, but with the same tactics and argument sense you had as a witness. You condemn the very thing you are. Why don't you explain the above statements specifically...using examples instead of making assertions with no basis? You are faulting us for asking you to prove points you stated as facts and the truth is, you have been knocked on your butt on most of the points you have mentioned- Jonah prophecying falsely in the name of God, the apostles prophecying falsely in the name of God to name just 2.
• 

  Mary

  If Franz talks against the WTBTS you categorize it as "his experience". He makes comments about regret for helping people become JWs due to the nature of JW's acting as mediator for Christ. He makes comments about how they interpret scripture incorrectly, how there organizational structure is more important to the WTBTS than actual truth.....from a JW perspective, that is attacking the WT. You guys like to dance with words a bunch.

  This is NOT "attacking" the Organization johnny. Ray can and does back up everything he says. The Organization HAS put itself as the "Mediator" in place of Christ. They claim that Jesus is ONLY the Mediator for 144,000----a concept found nowhere in the scriptures. And they most certainly HAVE interpreted scripture incorrectly. Hell, they've got a 100% failed record of every interpreting any prophecy right, and they've flip flopped on numerous doctrines over the last 130+ years. And it is a well known fact that the organizational structure is far more important to the GB members than actually truth----they admitted it under oath in a court of law that they must have "unity at all costs" even if it means enforcing false doctrines on the rank and file.

  If hearing the truth about this religion is viewed as "attacking the WT" from a JW perspective----too bad. The WTS never fails to pass up an opportunity to gleefully point out the faults of any other religion, but they sure as hell don't like it when the same thing is done to them.

  If you're so adament about defending a religion that has (supposedly) disfellowshipped you because 3 goons decided you weren't repentent enough, then by all means, go back to the Kingdom Hall, sit at the back for 6 months while everyone looks through you as though you do not exist. Then write a letter begging these men to let you back in, even though you did nothing to warrant getting DF'd. If that's how you want to live your life, then knock yourself out.